Back in March, a man called Christopher Warren posted on the Badman Review Action Group. I raised a few questions about the suitability of such a person being on that list and people got so angry that there was talk of chucking me off. I left, having drawn attention to the dangers of becoming mixed up with such a character. Here are a few links about Christopher Warren:
http://www.nccg.info/fastfacts.html
http://www.nccg.info/jannicke.html
http://www.nccg.info/memberindex.html
Of course, this might all be lies, although there is a great deal about Warren and his cult, the New Covenant Church of God on the Internet. By his own account, he is a very odd man. See his official site here:
http://www.nccg.org/warren.html
Gay readers will perhaps be surprised to learn that they are possessed by demons! I have suspected for some time that this awful man was involved with helping Alison Sauer draw up the new EHE guidelines. If true, the very presence of such a person anywhere near the things is enough to contaminate them and make them unacceptable to anybody who feels strongly about child abuse; which I am guessing includes most of us. Just what is his involvement in the business?
Much of the activity in the British home education scene is shaped and guided by a small number of people. One sees their names crop up again and again, both on lists and forums, in letters to newspapers and at Parliament. Alison Sauer is of course one of these people. She is advised by and has had many telephone conversations about the new guidelines with, Kelly Green in Canada. This American woman got Alison to write an introduction for her book. She runs a blog called Kelly Green and Gold. Apart from Alison Sauer, Kelly Green is in touch with other home educators in this country whose names will be familiar to many. People like Tania Berlow, for instance. Reading her blog enables one to work out who has been involved in drawing up the EHE guidelines. On December 30th last year, you will see this on Kelly Green’s blog:
‘I want to thank Pat Farenga, Alison Sauer, Tania Berlow, Diane Varty, Leaf Lovejoy, Grit of grit's day, and many other correspondents for helping me shape’
Pat Faranga is nothing to do with the case, she thanks him because he gave a glowing recommendation to her book. Alison Sauer, Tania Berlow and Leaf Lovejoy though have all been involved in drawing up the EHE guidelines. This is interesting. But wait, what’s missing from this picture boys and girls? The above quotation is not as it was first posted by Kelly Green. She actually included somebody else in her thanks and then removed his name after I drew attention to him in March. Fortunately, her original post was archived. Try this. Google CCM Warren and Diane Varty and see what comes up. You will find this:
‘ I want to thank Pat Farenga, CCM Warren, Alison Sauer, Tania Berlow, Diane Varty, Grit of grit's day, and many other correspondents for helping me shape my’
See what’s happened here? She has taken one member of the group working on the guidelines out and replace it with another. Out goes Christopher Warren and in comes Leaf Lovejoy. Interesting, no?
I have know about this for some time, but it was only yesterday when Jacquie Cox who also worked on the EHE guidelines confirmed it, that I knew for sure that Warren had been involved in the thing. The question which British home educators need to ask is this. Are they happy to see a dangerous madman like Christopher Warren working at the heart of a project which, if successful, will affect every home educating parent in the country? What does it say about Alison Sauer, the motivating force behind the thing, that she is happy to accept advice and guidance from this man? There are many other questions, but I think that I shall put them into another post, because this one is getting a little too long. I urge readers to look into this for themselves and not to take my word for anything. Check out the New Covenant Church of God, see what you can find out about Christopher Warren and the allegations surrounding him about under-age girls and then ask whether this person should be involved at all with home education in this country. What impression does this give those critical of home education about the sort of people that home educators are prepared to consort with?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
All very interesting, but what does 'involved with' specifically mean?
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't sound great, I admit. But just putting names together in a sentence doesn't mean anything. Or does it?
V. confused.
'All very interesting, but what does 'involved with' specifically mean?
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't sound great, I admit. But just putting names together in a sentence doesn't mean anything. Or does it?'
Good questions. It means that Christopher Warren has been advising Kelly Green in Canada about home education. Kelly Green and Alison Sauer chat regularly on the telephone, planning strategies about home education. It also means that Christopher Warren and Alison Sauer have been exchanging emails during the putting together of the EHE guidelines and that he has been giving her advice and, I rather suspect, actually writing some sections. If Jacquie Cox, who worked with Alison on the guidelines, would post the emails here, then we would have a clearer idea about this. Alison Sauer herself could also explain the extent of Warren's involvement if she wished to do so.
Simon.
Nice to see that the NCCG have put up a link to Shoshana's Home Education UK Network. It must be great to have your website and all of your members linked to homophobes and Islamophobes.
ReplyDeleteOh look.. there's Sandra Dodd, she was speaking at that nice little lttl.org conference recently, I didn't know she was a homophobe.
I notice those statistics about bullycides are prominently featured on their homeschool page.
ReplyDeleteOoooh look what it says here....
ReplyDelete'train up a child in the way he should go'
Wasn't that one something to do with the Christian Homeschooler who got off on hitting his kids with plastic tubing and wrote books about it?
'train up a child in the way he should go'
ReplyDeleteIt's a quote from the Bible misused by the Pearls.
And just because someone uses the phrase, does not mean that they believe in beating children (with plastic tubing or anything else).
ReplyDelete'And just because someone uses the phrase, does not mean that they believe in beating children (with plastic tubing or anything else).'
ReplyDeleteExplains a Congregationalist, or whatever they are calling themselves these days. Proverbs 22:6 was a guiding text of my own when raising my children, but it did not make me want to flog them!
Simon.
Hmmm, OK so I looked at Kelly Greens blog to see your quote Simon.
ReplyDeleteWhat Kelly was actually doing in that post, was thanking people for their help in furthering Kelly's understanding of the plight of HEers around the world. There was no mention of HE guidelines, only of her own developing thoughts.
I also googled as you sugested and did indeed see that She had gone back and edited out Mr Warrens name but I think you are reading too much into it. If I had been in conversation with, maybe even duped by, someone who was later rumoured to be of duplicitous and questionable beliefs I would want to remove their name too. I would put as much distance between myself and this person as possible both publicly and privately. So I see nothing suspicious in this.
You have shown no evidence that Mr Warren IS involved with guidelines, or that Kelly Green or Alison Sauer are in contact with him, OR that any of them wrote the guidelines either.
The links were informative about the kind of person he is, but your post doesn't me any show evidence of any continued 'consorting' of any kind.
'You have shown no evidence that Mr Warren IS involved with guidelines, or that Kelly Green or Alison Sauer are in contact with him, OR that any of them wrote the guidelines either.'
ReplyDeleteYou speak truely C. However, now that we know that emails between Alison Sauer and Christopher Warren are floating about and that Kelly Green has also been in contact with him, I think that we will be seeing more emerge in the near future.
Simon.
We know that it appears that Kelly had been in contact with Mr Warren at one time- we don't know it was via email, or that she continues to be in contact with him. We also, unless I missed it, do not know that Alison Sauer was at any point in contact with Mr Warren.
ReplyDeleteI do think more will emerge from this situation as time goes on, but not necessarily in the sinister way you are suggesting. More than likely it will be people wishing to step away from involvement with him and his organisation.
"Nice to see that the NCCG have put up a link to Shoshana's Home Education UK Network."
ReplyDeleteHow is this significant in any way whatsoever? Anyone can put a link on their web page to any other web site. He could put a link to Simon's blog or the NSPCC's web site up there if he wished. Does that mean that there is a link between him and them? Of course not.
I think that somehow Simon and the NSPCC would have requested their sites be removed.
ReplyDeleteThus, maintaining their integrity.
And as for the 'train up a child' quote being from Proverbs..
ReplyDeleteMany quotes from The Bible have been used to justify genocide, murder and child abuse.
'And as for the 'train up a child' quote being from Proverbs..
ReplyDeleteMany quotes from The Bible have been used to justify genocide, murder and child abuse. '
And?
'I think that somehow Simon and the NSPCC would have requested their sites be removed.
ReplyDeleteThus, maintaining their integrity.'
And if Shoshanna and Sandra didn't know they were being linked to by Warren?
And if they requested the links to be taken down, but they weren't?
How does that speak to their integrity?
Sandra and Shoshanna do now.
ReplyDeleteThat's what a 'report abuse' button is for.
The rest is down to personal beliefs, principles and honesty.
ReplyDelete'And if they requested the links to be taken down, but they weren't?
ReplyDeleteHow does that speak to their integrity?'
Christopher Warren gives in quite quickly to requests of this sort. He has an article on his site denouncing a smear campaign against the Johansson family which he accuses me of orchestrating. When he first put it up, he mentioned me by name. I contacted him and gave my views quite firmly. He removed my name within hours. If anybody does not wish to have their names connected to this man, I suggest they do the same.
Simon.
'We also, unless I missed it, do not know that Alison Sauer was at any point in contact with Mr Warren.'
ReplyDeleteActually, we know this very well. Jacquie Cox, who helped Alison with the EHE guidelines, has a bunch of emails which Alison exchanged with Warren. I have no doubt that she is telling the truth about this for several reasons. First, she cannot stand me and has no reason to support anything I say. I have it on good authority that she regards me as a malevolent idiot! Secondly, I can see no motive for her inventing this story. Finally, she quotes other names used by Warren in these emails. These are ones which he has used in the past when giving interviews about polygamy, for instance. (He 'married' a sixteen year-old girl when he was forty four).
'I do think more will emerge from this situation as time goes on, but not necessarily in the sinister way you are suggesting.'
I'm not sure that 'sinister' is precisely the word I would use. Foolish and ill-judged, certainly, but no more than that, I hope. I would not care to breathe the same air as this dreadful man, much less see other parents bound by rules which he helped to compile. As I say, Alison can tell us herself if this is all nonsense. I know she reads this blog; all she has to do is release the emails which she exchanged with Warren or tell us that there are none. I think that she would be well advised to think carefully about that second course of action though, because I have an idea that these emails are heading towards the public domain in any case.
Simon.
Raises a glass to integrity.
ReplyDelete'Sandra and Shoshanna do now.'
ReplyDeleteHow do they know? Did you let them know?
Okay..... it does seem that some home educators do "jump in" to support other HE causes without perhaps showing much discrimination - although I am sure this tendency isn't restricted to home education - it seems to be the sort of thing that often happens in any minority group. The increased use of the internet is also a factor- stories get spread very quickly, there are pleas for support, petitions etc that move so rapidly the chance to check the real facts is left long behind.
ReplyDeleteWarren and his organisation don't seem to be a good advertisement for home education and it would seem unwise for this link to be developed. However, it is also appears we can't be sure from the blog references given whether the original links with Alison S, Kelly G or anyone else go beyond an initial "let's all support the home education cause" sort of contact. What is worrying is that, if I read this correctly, Jacqui seems to be saying that she is in possession of some emails sent between Alison and Warren, so the real question is, - is Alison influenced by Warren's views and is he involved in any way with supporting/campaigning/directing home education causes in the UK?
"That's what a 'report abuse' button is for."
ReplyDeleteWhat on earth are you on about? Report abuse buttons are on forums or comment forms, not normal web sites. What button are they supposed to use?
Simon wrote " Actually, we know this very well. Jacquie Cox, who helped Alison with the EHE guidelines, has a bunch of emails which Alison exchanged with Warren. I have no doubt that she is telling the truth about this for several reasons.*reasons cited*"
ReplyDeleteThankyou for clarifying this. Based on this then, and assuming Jacquie Cox isn't mistaken, Alison Sauer did at one time or another have contact with this man. What is to suggest that she STILL has contact with this man? Or that she ultimately was influenced in her opinions by anything he said?
Again I am reluctant to assume the worst, when for all we know she could have realised what he was involved in and stepped away.
Simon also wrote I'm not sure that 'sinister' is precisely the word I would use. Foolish and ill-judged, certainly, but no more than that, I hope. I would not care to breathe the same air as this dreadful man, much less see other parents bound by rules which he helped to compile. As I say, Alison can tell us herself if this is all nonsense. I know she reads this blog; all she has to do is release the emails which she exchanged with Warren or tell us that there are none. I think that she would be well advised to think carefully about that second course of action though, because I have an idea that these emails are heading towards the public domain in any case.
Maybe sinister isnt the right word, but I still maintain it doesn't really help situations to think the worst. Indeed Alison Sauer could confirm or deny the truths presented here although I suspect that if she did confirm/deny such a thing, no-one would believe her anyway.
Besides the fact, any emails that have been exchanged between her and Mr Warren are private and she has no obligation to show us them. If, as you seem certain, these emails are at risk of being put into the public domain in order to discredit her, I consider this is a very unkind thing to do to her. In fact I feel no one should be subject to this kind of thing. And in the mean time, speculation of this kind doesnt help anyone.
'And in the mean time, speculation of this kind doesnt help anyone.'
ReplyDeleteI find myself unable to agree with you about this, C. We have here a middle aged cult leader who admits to having had sex with a sixteen year old at the age of forty four. There are many allegations about his sexual interst in girls as young as twelve. He has dealings with various influential British home educators and when I have drawn attention to the stories about him, some of these people have defended him furiously and called for me to be removed from the forums where I have asked the questions. I think it important to know what this man is up to and who he is having dealings with, so that parents can be on their guard. He has a history of recruiting vulnerable mothers via the Internet and luring them to his commune in Sweden. He particularly targets lone mothers with daughters aged twelve to fifteen. Am I really the only one who sees the dangers here? Many home educating parents rely upon the lists and forums to keep in touch; they are supported by them. Having a predatory paedophile prowling round these places is terrible. Having such a man anywhere near parents, let alone being on chummy terms with those who are trying to alter the legal relationship between parents and their local authorities is a catastrophe wating to happen. When fairly well known British home educators who run sites about home education, people like Karen Rodgers, endorse Warren, this might encourage other parents to trust him.
Simon.
Simon - I completely agree with you and I would hate for you not to understand this because just from what I read about this man, he is a very dangerous man to be involved with in any shape or form. I think you are absolutely right to be warning people about these dangers and pointing out how Home Educators linking themselves with him is an incredibly unwise move.
ReplyDeleteWhen I spoke of speculation, I was really talking about the situation about Alison S, Kelly G and other you used in connection with him and my point was, whilst they may have had dealings with him in the past, we have no firm evidence that they STILL deal with him, or that they are influnced by him in any way.
And when I said about emails being private, I meant that no one should be at risk of having private emails used against them. It is unkind. But I agree that if evidence were found that any person were still in consultation with, or under influnce from Mr Warren I would be VERY concerned indeed.
I hope this explains what I was trying to say more clearly.
' we have no firm evidence that they STILL deal with him, or that they are influnced by him in any way.'
ReplyDeleteWell of course that is a fair point, C. I have no idea if anybody is still in touch with this guy. I suppose that having said quite a bit about him in the past, I was surprised to find a little while ago that he had had dealings with some of the more high profile people in the British home educating scene. I find this alarming. I am hoping that we will learn more about this in the future.
Simon.
But what do you mean by dealings? Do you mean they had email conversations with him as you did? Or meetings? Joint ventures? Can you be a little less vague please?
ReplyDelete'Do you mean they had email conversations with him as you did?'
ReplyDeleteI don't recall ever having an email conversation with this man! I saw he was using my name and I sent him a message, asking him not to. He removed all mention of me from his site, but did not reply to me.
Simon.
All of the above just reaffirms my anti authoritarian, anti centralized planning/power stance regardless of who's in the power and who's planning. I don't need anybody involved in the home education guidelines because I don't want any guidelines and refuse having to prove my innocence and competence on regular basis!
ReplyDelete"I don't recall ever having an email conversation with this man!"
ReplyDeleteOn the Badman Review group?
"I don't recall ever having an email conversation with this man!"
ReplyDeleteOn the Badman Review group?'
No, not there either. Warren posted on March 5th as Karaliaucius, a false name which he often uses, asking for support for the Johanssons. I posted generally, pointing out to people that there was more to this case than met the eye. Warren ignored me and addressed himself to everybody. We did not have any conversation. The BRAG messages are open to the public, start at March 5th this year and work your way through.
Simon.
I think you're adding two and two and getting something in excess of six, Simon. You're always accusing home educators on various lists of being overly paranoid and seeing things that aren't there, and I think it's afflicting you too.
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteMy name's Alison Sauer and I read your blog with fascination and interest! I had no idea I was either so powerful, or so feared! Amazing what a Mum with passion can do, aint' it?
Now, I do have to admit I've had contact with Christopher Warren. And Kelly Green is one of my best friends. And I adore Tania. And I've also spoken with Jacqui Cox, Jim Rose, Shena Deuchars, Fiona Nicholson, Anne Wade, Mike Fortune-Wood, Ruth Hannah, Olaf Hindmarsh, Danny Alexander, Lord Greaves, Claire Fox, Jamie Oliver and many, many other people over the last year about a vast range of diverse topics. In the interests of full disclosure I can also state I've spoken to the man who runs the corner shop this morning, as I wondered if he thought it was going to rain too. He's not a Christian as far as I know.
I'd no idea that I was quite to secret and quite so powerful. I do hope this means I'll get a new car soon, before my battered one dies. No doubt the Gnomes in Switzerland are sending me gold galleons in secret, as I write. I hope they arrive soon! Can't help thinking someone that secretive and powerful, would be rich!
Now, as I'm here, I have to make it clear that all the investigations into my nefarious activities have never resulted in charges being brought, or even my being indicted. The CIA, MFI, MI5, the CSA, DfS and IKEA have all tried to bring me down, and all have failed. I'll leave you to determine what I mean by that sentence, since you're so good at knowing stuff without reference to facts. :-) That's me being sneaky, by the way. Also, I should make it clear that I have also contacted Elvis, through Area 51, and he is indeed living on the moon in that red double decker bus.
Thank you so much for cheering up my Sunday. I'm not even sure if I mind it raining now.
Cheers
Alison Sauer!
"I posted generally, pointing out to people that there was more to this case than met the eye. Warren ignored me and addressed himself to everybody. "
ReplyDeleteOK then, you sort of had half a conversation with him. You addressed an email to him, asking various questions and he ignored you. I asked what contact others had had. I asked you to stop being so vague in your accusations against others and to be specific. For all we know, their contact with him may have been as limited as yours. You go on so much about others making wild unsubstantiated claims, yet hear you are...
hear?!?
ReplyDeleteshould have been 'here', of course.
*splurge across keyboard*
ReplyDeleteDammit Alison, now I have to buy a new keyboard too!
*cleans tea out of keyboard...*
I suppose I should wear a tinfoil hat when reading this blog... just in case. ;-)
Well apparently I'll be so rich soon that I'll be able to buy you one....send me the bill!
ReplyDeleteAlison, maybe Elvis could send you some blue cheese from the moon (do they have Stilton up there?) and you could open a cheese shop? Or, better yet, Simon could set up the cheese shop. Running the shop may help him occupy his grumpy-old-man days so he doesn't have to engage in further ridiculous conjecture (which often borders on libel, a dangerous hobby at the best of times).
ReplyDeleteSimon, you come to some very bizarre conclusions based on Kelly Green's blog post from December 30, 2010.
ReplyDeleteClearly, the author of the post was talking about the difference between a right and a freedom. It is not a post about a specific place - it's a post about ideas and how ideas affect our home education freedoms (or rights?) across the globe - and about how we in North America (yep, I live across the pond) need to pay attention to what's happening elsewhere in the world. When she thanks them, she is thanking them for the time they took to chat with her about these issues or because they'd written about them elsewhere and she's wanting to give credit where credit is due.
To then conclude that these thanked individuals are somehow influencing UK policy is truly odd and a little bit paranoid. I understand how frustrating it must be to feel that there is a document out there that may influence policy that you didn't write, but to then go on a witch hunt of this nature, naming people who likely weren't ever involved, is irresponsible. Yes, this is your blog and you are allowed to do whatever you want on it - to a point. You may want to draw the line at saying things that have no truth or evidence which may actually damage the reputation of others.
For full disclosure, I am not Kelly Green nor am I anyone listed in that post. I am, however, interested in the climate of home education in the UK for the very reasons Ms. Green outlines in that blog post. I stumbled across your blog and have been reading with a wary eye. I think I'll stop reading now because, clearly, you are talking out of your hat on most matters. It's a waste of my time.
Best regards,
Angela from Canada
Two things if I may?
ReplyDeleteFirstly, Simon. Is that a story you are going to stick with - that you ONLY had contact with Mr Warren on b.r.a.g, with him using a pseudonym? I smell pork scratchings! I may be wrong.
As for Alison.
Let me say that assuming it was in fact Alison who posted here (not wishing to be unkind, but it seemed rather smarter, wittier and funnier than her usual offerings, and she never responds publically to these things) - it is her utter arrogance and contempt for other home educators that brought me to this place. As Simon says, I am not overly keen on him.
She and her supporters have consistently dismissed and ridiculed anyone who has voiced legitimate concerns about her actions and her associations. She has demonstrated that well in her post. She is rather adept at convincing others that she is constantly under attack, using sob stories of harassment and death threats. It is unfortunate that Simon is one of the most outspoken on the subject, since most people already dismiss him as being a malevolent idiot, to paraphrase him. People are afraid to speak out against her, as they know they will be dismissed as rabid agitators, nutters and so on. Mention here of ‘tin hats’ to prove my point.
I have said it before, and I will say it again, I have no agenda, other than protecting my children and those of other home educators. I became involved with the Draft Guidelines for one reason - I did not trust Alison to act in the best interests of Home Educated children. My current concern about Alison is her apparent lack of judgement, as this recent issue with Christopher Warren has once again shown.
Some people may like to ascribe money as the motivating factor; I fear it is much more problematic than that and something far less tangible. Most people would say that while money is not the most socially acceptable reason to ‘sell someone down the river’, they could almost understand it. It is a grubby reason, but somewhat understandable and justifiable. Some people have said to me in the last few days that they do not feel right about speaking out, because they would not want a person to lose their livelihood over it.
While frustrating, I am heartened that home educators are decent enough to care about her children, when the care is not reciprocated. They are prepared to put up with the insults to their integrity, closed and secretive dealings, blatant disrespect, and backstabbing, because they care about not taking food out of her children’s mouths. You are much better people than I am.
I am hoping that this comment was in fact written by Alison, and that the statement, “since you're so good at knowing stuff without reference to facts” is a challenge for me to produce those facts. I would be more than happy to produce evidence of everything I have said. I know there are some like ‘C’, who think it would be ‘very unkind’ to do so, and you may well be right. On this occasion, I have no compunction about producing private emails for public scrutiny.
Especially not where a person’s judgement is called into question, and where that judgement could potentially cause harm to our children. The person posting as Alison confirms that they have indeed had contact with Christopher C. Warren. The fact that they see no harm in having contact with him is especially worrying to me...
...
ReplyDeleteIt has been said that any number of home educators may have had contact with him, in relation to the Johanssons, and that speaks to their own lack of judgement. I wonder though, how many would have contacted this man in order to thank him for quashing the ‘myths’ that Simon made up, relieved upon Mr Warren’s say-so, that they were indeed false? I wonder how many would have contacted him in support and solidarity? I shall not repeat what she says about Simon here.
Mr Warren responds by sending copies of his degree certificate, so that she may know the truth about Simons allegations concerning Mr Warren’s education. He then goes on to say that he does so in order that she can “squelch any lies which he may subsequently try to tell”. It concerns me that she could not put aside her dislike of Simon Webb, which I admit is difficult to do, long enough to investigate, if she did not already know, who and what this Christopher Warren is.
She did not consider what a connection to this man could potentially mean for home-educated children, or what it could do to the reputation of home education. This from a person who claims to have an understanding of and an insight into child protection issues. We have already been accused of many unfair things, and thanks to Alison, and Karen Rogers who I am told publically endorsed the man, home education could potentially be associated with fanatical Christian polygamists and a ‘tin hat’ New World Order.
If there is even a hint of impropriety around this Warren person, then home educators, especially those who presume to speak on behalf of the rest of us to GS and others, should be savvy enough to give him the widest of berths. There could be no excuse for this emailing this individual to show support and solidarity as Alison did. I shudder to imagine what could go wrong in a situation like this. Surely, the safety of our children should always be paramount? While I am all for giving a person the benefit of the doubt, one merely has to read Mr Warren’s website to know that something is amiss.
I agree that this could happen in any other walk of life, but home educators as a group who are already considered with suspicion, who already face prejudice, need to be super-aware of the potential for disaster.
While Alison says, whether sarcastically or not, that nothing against her has ever been proven, I will provide that proof if she is challenging me to do so. I cannot say whether she continues to have contact with Mr Warren or not, only that the emails I have date from mid March this year. It does not change the fact that in doing so, she has shown at the very least, a severe lack of judgement that has the potential for disastrous consequences. Unfortunately, a lack of good judgement is not something that is easily rectified.
I also cannot comment on any connection between Kelly Green and Christopher Warren. If one exists as Simon claims, I am personally unaware of it. As for whether or not Kelly advises Alison and any connection Kelly might have with Mr Warren influences that, well I cannot comment about that either, it is not something I know about. Alison claims Kelly as her best friend - people can make their own minds up. For what it is worth, from my limited interaction with Kelly, I found her to be someone who would earnestly and seriously, consider the opinion of others.
Finally, to say that these people were all members of the ‘secret group’ working on the guidelines is untrue. Many of them may have seen a copy of it, they may have even voiced an opinion on it - usually what a great job it was, but there was only one author of the bulk of it and a proof reader, me. The rest you all know. As always, I am happy to be proved wrong in any of the statements I make here.
...
ReplyDeleteIt has been said that any number of home educators may have had contact with him, in relation to the Johanssons, and that speaks to their own lack of judgement. I wonder though, how many would have contacted this man in order to thank him for quashing the ‘myths’ that Simon made up, relieved, upon Mr Warren’s say-so, that they were indeed false? I wonder how many would have contacted him in support and solidarity? I shall not repeat what she says about Simon here.
Mr Warren responds by sending copies of his degree certificate, so that she may know the truth about Simons allegations concerning Mr Warren’s education. He then goes on to say that he does so in order that she can “squelch any lies which he may subsequently try to tell”. It concerns me that she could not put aside her dislike of Simon Webb, which I admit is difficult to do, long enough to investigate, if she did not already know, who and what this Christopher Warren is.
She did not consider what a connection to this man could potentially mean for home-educated children, or what it could do to the reputation of home education. This from a person who claims to have an understanding of and an insight into child protection issues. We have already been accused of many unfair things, and thanks to Alison, and Karen Rogers who I am told publically endorsed the man, home education could potentially be associated with fanatical Christian polygamists and a ‘tin hat’ New World Order.
If there is even a hint of impropriety around this Warren person, then home educators, especially those who presume to speak on behalf of the rest of us to GS and others, should be savvy enough to give him the widest of berths. There could be no excuse for this emailing this individual to show support and solidarity as Alison did. I shudder to imagine what could go wrong in a situation like this. Surely, the safety of our children should always be paramount? While I am all for giving a person the benefit of the doubt, one merely has to read Mr Warren’s website to know that something is amiss.
I agree that this could happen in any other walk of life, but home educators as a group who are already considered with suspicion, who already face prejudice, need to be super-aware of the potential for disaster.
While Alison says, whether sarcastically or not, that nothing against her has ever been proven, I will provide that proof if she is challenging me to do so. I cannot say whether she continues to have contact with Mr Warren or not, only that the emails I have date from mid March this year. It does not change the fact that in doing so, she has shown at the very least, a severe lack of judgement that has the potential for disastrous consequences. Unfortunately, a lack of good judgement is not something that is easily rectified.
I also cannot comment on any connection between Kelly Green and Christopher Warren. If one exists as Simon claims, I am personally unaware of it. As for whether or not Kelly advises Alison and any connection Kelly might have with Mr Warren that influences that, well I cannot comment about that either, it is not something I know about. Alison claims Kelly as her best friend - people can make their own minds up. For what it is worth, from my limited interaction with Kelly, I found her to be someone who would earnestly and seriously, consider the opinion of others.
Finally, to say that these people were all members of the ‘secret group’ working on the guidelines is untrue. Many of them may have seen a copy of it, they may have even voiced an opinion on it - usually what a great job it was, but there was only one author of the bulk of it and a proof reader, me. The rest you all know. As always, I am happy to be proved wrong in any of the statements I make here.
Simon, you are deleting the second part to my post. You have done this twice. May I ask why? Is it because it disagrees with what you have written? I admit they were long posts, and I am taking liberties.
ReplyDeleteYou will force me to write my own blog in order that people may know the truth. Perhaps it is time for people to leave this one well enough alone? You decide.
Let's try this a third time ...
ReplyDeleteIt has been said that any number of home educators may have had contact with him, in relation to the Johanssons, and that speaks to their own lack of judgement. I wonder though, how many would have contacted this man in order to thank him for quashing the ‘myths’ that Simon made up, relieved, upon Mr Warren’s say-so, that they were indeed false? I wonder how many would have contacted him in support and solidarity? I shall not repeat what she says about Simon here.
Mr Warren responds by sending copies of his degree certificate, so that she may know the truth about Simon's allegations concerning Mr Warren’s education. He then goes on to say that he does so in order that she "can squelch any lies which he may subsequently try to tell”. It concerns me that she could not put aside her dislike of Simon Webb, which I admit is difficult to do, long enough to investigate, if she did not already know, who and what this Christopher Warren is.
She did not consider what a connection to this man could potentially mean for home-educated children, or what it could do to the reputation of home education. This from a person who claims to have an understanding of and an insight into child protection issues. We have already been accused of many unfair things, and thanks to Alison, and others who I am told publically endorsed the man, home education could potentially be associated with fanatical Christian polygamists and a ‘tin hat’ New World Order.
If there is even a hint of impropriety around this Warren person, then home educators, especially those who presume to speak on behalf of the rest of us to GS and others, should be savvy enough to give him the widest of berths. There could be no excuse for emailing this individual to show support and solidarity as Alison did. I shudder to imagine what could go wrong in a situation like this, if many home educators were not so aware. Surely, the safety of our children should always be paramount? While I am all for giving a person the benefit of the doubt, one merely has to read Mr Warren’s website to know that something is amiss.
I agree that this could happen in any other walk of life, but home educators as a group, who are already considered with suspicion, who already face prejudice, need to be super-aware of the potential for disaster.
While Alison says, whether sarcastically or not, that nothing against her has ever been proven, I will provide that proof if she is challenging me to do so. I cannot say whether she continues to have contact with Mr Warren or not, only that the emails I have date from mid March this year. It does not change the fact that in doing so, she has shown at the very least, a severe lack of judgement that has the potential for disastrous consequences. Unfortunately, a lack of good judgement is not something that is easily rectified.
I also cannot comment on any connection between Kelly Green and Christopher Warren. If one exists as Simon claims, I am personally unaware of it. As for whether or not Kelly advises Alison, and any connection Kelly might have with Mr Warren that influences that, well I cannot comment about this either, it is not something I know about. Alison claims Kelly as her best friend - people can make their own minds up. For what it is worth, from my limited interaction with Kelly, I found her to be someone who would earnestly and seriously, consider the opinion of others.
Finally, to say that these people were all members of the ‘secret group’ working on the guidelines is untrue. Many of them may have seen a copy of it, they may have even voiced an opinion on it - usually what a great job it was, but there was only one author of the bulk of it, and a proof reader, me. The rest you all know. As always, I am happy to be proved wrong in any of the statements I make here.
'Simon, you are deleting the second part to my post. You have done this twice. May I ask why? Is it because it disagrees with what you have written? I admit they were long posts, and I am taking liberties.'
ReplyDeleteI have not been online since this morning and have not deleted anything. I have looked in the spam filter which blogger installed without asking me and found some stuff there, which I have now published. I have explained about this problem before; I do not censor anything on this blog.
You say that you are planning to start a blog yourself and I am sure that you will find this an enjoyable experience. You also say that it might be time for people to stop reading this blog. I do not drag people on here and assume that those who read this do so because they wish to do so! By all means stop reading it if that is what you want, you are a free agent.
Simon.
"Mr Warren responds by sending copies of his degree certificate, so that she may know the truth about Simons allegations concerning Mr Warren’s education. He then goes on to say that he does so in order that she can “squelch any lies which he may subsequently try to tell”."
ReplyDeleteSo are you saying that Warren asked Alison to quash any allegations made by Simon on email lists? If so, did she do this, or did she use her judgement and not do this?
@ Simon, that is curious, I have never had that problem with Blogger. I am sure nobody would object if you deleted the duplicates, it is your blog after all. You have not answered my question:
ReplyDelete"Simon. Is that a story you are going to stick with - that you ONLY had contact with Mr Warren on b.r.a.g, with him using a pseudonym?"
@ Anonymous ... I have no idea if she did. I am only on HE-UK and Simon is banned from there, so I have no idea what he said or she did.
I appreciate you allowing my long posts Simon.
Jacquie - no idea about the rest of what is going on, but the behaviour of blogger "eating" long posts is nothing sinister - happens to me all the time!
ReplyDeleteI realise that my comment above to Anonymous is not entirely accurate. I do know what Alison did. She forwarded her correspondence with Warren to me, Kelly Green and another of her friends. I shall not use his name here, because I believe he is seriously ill, and that would not be fair.
ReplyDeleteHe goes by the pseudonym 'Georgie' and has at times come out in support of Alison. She makes a comment in the email that she sent to us, asking what she should do next, and wondering whether 'Georgie' could pitch in at some point.
Just as she has done on any number of occasions, she enlists the help of her friends to speak out on her behalf. Why the three of us? I could hazard a guess - because we are the most outspoken people she knows? Possibly.
Now the important point to make, is one about 'Georgie'. When the whole guidelines re-write hit the HE lists - accidently leaked by another of Alison's friends, a home-educator (I think) appeared in Tania Berlow's online EHE life, to offer support and general guidance on how to deal with the backlash that she was getting from every one. I was immediately suspicious, it is my nature, and told her so. I will come back to this.
When I eventually came to have one of two telephone conversations with Alison, we talked about Tania's interaction with Simon, and I said that I was not happy about it. Then I asked Alison who the 'Georgie' person was - remember not using his real name here - and she said I should not worry. She said that this person was a good friend of hers, whom she had asked to befriend Tania in order to keep an eye on her and moderate if he could, the information she put out about the new guidelines.
A number of people have asked me recently, and not so recently, why people listen to Alison. I think it is because they are far nicer people than me.
I know for example that both Tania and Kelly are decent people, who believe in the innate goodness of most people, willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, and genuinely hoping that they will live up to that trust. I on the other hand give people the benefit of the doubt, fully expecting them to fail at the first hurdle. I think that this trait that Tania and Kelly, and many genuinely decent people share, is infinitely preferable to my jaded one.
And lets not forget, before Simon starts lambasting people for being decent, that this trait is one that has existed throughout history, and is the basis of many acts of great fellowship and bravery. Hitler's continued murder and incarceration of millions happened, not because the rest of the world didn't care, but because the vast majority of people believed in the innate goodness of humankind, and simply could not fathom that his sort of evil existed.
It is an admirable trait, but unfortunately the very one used by the unscrupulous to manipulate people into believing that 'everyone is being mean to me' and 'it's not fair and you should stand up for me'. I do not presume to speak for Tania, or Kelly, or anyone else who has been decent enough to care about someone they perceived to be 'embattled', someone who befriended them for exactly this trait. This is my opinion, not theirs.
Tin hat fantasy? Maybe. But everyone can judge for themselves, based on their own experience. Everyone can consider for themselves why they felt on any number of occasions, uncomfortable about what was going on around the guidelines thing.
Apologies Simon for another long post.
Okay, so this Georgie Eden, who posted on BRAG in an incomprehensible way and here once too, is C Warren pretending to be a female UK home ecucator? Is this definite, Jacquie?
ReplyDeleteI fervently hope that Graham Stuart is still reading this these days.
ReplyDelete@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteNo, that is not what I said. This 'Georgie' person is a male friend of Alison's. I will only not mention his name because I am told that he is very seriously ill.
The point was that she gets her 'friends' to spy on and manipulate her other 'friends'. I mention this man because he was sent copies of the Alison/Warren correspondence and asked to come out in support.
@Anonymous next ... unfortunately, GS was sucked in like everyone else - he is a decent man who gives people the benefit of the doubt.
Now I am taking my kids out ... so I shall not respond further at the mo.
"What is curious is that this happens on all blogs run with blogger and yet I have never seen any accusations elsewhere that it is anything other than a technical glitch."
ReplyDeleteFor Gods sake, learn to read before you start spreading even more false rumours and misinformation. With people like you around, how can anyone hope to learn the truth?
Whoops, that last comment was in response to this:
ReplyDelete"Okay, so this Georgie Eden, who posted on BRAG in an incomprehensible way and here once too, is C Warren pretending to be a female UK home ecucator?"
'For Gods sake, learn to read before you start spreading even more false rumours and misinformation. With people like you around, how can anyone hope to learn the truth? '
ReplyDeleteWow! This blog's comments section is now almost as nasty a place to be as 'the lists' I left years ago.
Have fun everyone!
'This blog's comments section is now almost as nasty a place to be as 'the lists' I left years ago.'
ReplyDeleteYes, this is a fair point, Anonymous. I actually started this place as a reufge for those who found places like HE-UK a bit to aggressive. I am thinking about what to do about this.
Simon.
You could just shut off the comments. Then you can say whatever you like without being challenged! I think you'd be much happier.
ReplyDelete'You could just shut off the comments. Then you can say whatever you like without being challenged! I think you'd be much happier.'
ReplyDeleteWell of course, that is perfectly true; I would be much happier. However, I started this blog in the first place because I had been chucked of the EO list and various other places. It would seem a little bit much if I now did the same thing to others who don't agree with me. It would make me no better than Mike Fortune-Wood, Christine Waterman and the others who banned me from their lists.
Simon.
A comment for Jacqui:
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time understanding your underlying motives for wanting to "expose" Alison Sauer. I think you've accomplished that task admirably elsewhere and yet here you are, on some obscure and angry little blog, saying the same things over and over again (now with a little Christopher Warren thrown into the mix). You seem obsessed with dragging Alison and her friends through the mud and, from the outside looking in, it's getting a little tired. I think you should be satisfied that you've made your point, that you've owned up to being untrustworthy (i.e. you were pretending one thing while doing another just to influence the outcome rather than being straight up about it all along; or else that is your cover story because this is really just one long tantrum for not getting your own way), and that you've in most likelihood discredited the people you were intending to discredit (as well as others who just happened to be in proximity). Job well done! But perhaps you can step away from this train wreck now and just get on with living your life. Surely you're happier when you are not wallowing about in the muck like this? If you've contacted Graham Stuart with your own opinions and you've alerted the home ed community to your concerns, then you've done all you can. But to keep going on like this actually weakens your position and reduces your own credibility. I don't think that anyone is challenging you to do anything further. And a word to the wise: sharing private email is a very tricky business and if you go down that road, few home educators will ever trust you again. I hope you can see that and I truly wish you peace and happiness in your life.
I don't think Simon is worried about being challenged. He can take care of himself.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is one of dealing with annoying, silly or cruel commenters. Anyone who has ever moderated a yahoo group knows that this is tricky. You don't want to censor people, but in order to encourage free and sensible debate, the annoyances/silliness/cruelty have to be curbed as far as possible or debate will be stifled anyway because people will be reluctant to post.
I have to say I've missed Mr Williams. Though he said some daft and insulting things sometimes, at least he was funny with it!
"Wow! This blog's comments section is now almost as nasty a place to be as 'the lists' I left years ago."
ReplyDeleteSo you think it's fine for someone else (Georgie) to be smeared by anonymous as a child abuser without challenge? How was the comment nasty exactly? Surely you're not such a shrinking violet that the suggestion that someone pay a little more attention to what's actually written rather than their own biases is upsetting? Do you think it's OK for Simon and others to slander people and drag their names through the mud without someone pointing out their errors? I doubt even more now the claims about 'nasty' email lists if such an innocuous comment results in this type of reaction.
'So you think it's fine for someone else (Georgie) to be smeared by anonymous as a child abuser without challenge?'
ReplyDeleteGeorgie doesn't exist. I know it's complicated, but do try to keep up. Lord knows I'm trying...
"Georgie doesn't exist. I know it's complicated, but do try to keep up. Lord knows I'm trying... "
ReplyDeleteUsing a pseudonym doesn't mean someone doesn't exist. Or maybe it does? In which case, you anonymous, must be a figment of my imagination, and I a figment of yours. Unless we really are called anonymous?
@ The person who wrote a personal message to me. I am trying very hard not to 'expose' YOU in all of this, because I know that you had nothing to do with Christopher Warren. You may have missed that point in my various posts?
ReplyDeleteObsessed? Hmm possibly, and if obsession with the truth is something to be ashamed of ... consider me well and truly chastised.
You are of course absolutely right, I am utterly untrustworthy. If you are trying to be duplicitous, then don't tell me. If are manipulating people to your own ends out of vanity and greed, then you can count on me being untrustworthy, I will indeed expose you. If you are manoeuvring and conniving against the little guy - you can count on me to ruthlessly put that out into the public domain. What can I say? My bad! (That is the Royal 'you' by the way, not you personally).
You know the saying ... "You are going to get dirty if you wrestle with a pig" - yup I have known this from the start. But I have not let that, and veiled threats, silence me. I can't help it - it is a thing I have about justice.
As for exposing private emails. That email was sent to me also, not just you. So I have as much ownership of it as anyone else in the 'send to' list. It is lucky that I am not vindictive - many people you and I both know would take offence at your threat, and publish them out of spite ... a word to the wise, as you say.
And as an aside, thank you for your wish for me. The one thing I do have in my life is peace and happiness. It allows me not to give a monkeys what people think about me. It is very liberating! You cannot insult or question my integrity, for example, because my integrity is my measure of myself, not your measure of me. See how it works?
Sorry, couldn't resist a bit of sarcasm, it is kinda catching. My bad again.
I don't want to be on this blog any more than you do ... but people caught in the proximity, and Simon's fantasy keeps dragging me back.
Just how sanctimonious can you get?
ReplyDelete'I don't want to be on this blog any more than you do ... but people caught in the proximity, and Simon's fantasy keeps dragging me back.'
ReplyDeleteThis is most unfortunate and I feel somewhat responsible for this poor woman's plight. It must be a terrible thing to find one's self trapped in somebody else's blog like this. Jacquie sounds like a lost soul, like those dead spirits which cannot leave the Earth. If only somebody could say to her, 'Come to the light, it is time for you to go from this place. You no longer belong on Simon's blog and are free to leave now'.
But no, like so many others Jacquie Cox hates being here, is immensely irritated by me on a personal level and yet feels unable to break free. I truly pity her and would happily help rid her of this addiction if I could. It is quite true, as somebody remarks above, that she is without doubt the most monumentally sanctimonious and self-righteous home educator on the scene; this too in a group of individuals noted for these characteristics. Even so, nobody deserves to be dragged back here by my fantasies and we must hope that Jacquie eventually finds the peace and tranquility which she seeks.
Simon.
"It is quite true, as somebody remarks above, that she is without doubt the most monumentally sanctimonious and self-righteous home educator on the scene; this too in a group of individuals noted for these characteristics."
ReplyDeleteTo read this blog anyone would think that all home educators are either Machiavellian plotters or people who pretend to be moral but are presumably inferior and morally reprehensible in your view. No surprise then that you avoided mixing with home educators in read life, Simon. I'm just glad to have so many normal home educating families so I know what rot you speak.
'No surprise then that you avoided mixing with home educators in read life, Simon.'
ReplyDeleteI have been associated with home educating families in real life since 1972. I still work with them professionally and know a number socially as well. I wonder what led you to suppose that i don't know any?
Simon.
'who pretend to be moral but are presumably inferior and morally reprehensible in your view.'
ReplyDeleteIncomprehensible logic. A good person can be self-righeous and sanctimonious. Just because I describe somebody as sanctimonious, that does not mean that I regard her as morally reprehensible. Being good or bad and being self righeous are two entirely different things.
Simon.
"Incomprehensible logic. A good person can be self-righeous and sanctimonious."
ReplyDeleteSo you're saying that someone can feign righteousness and also be righteous?
'So you're saying that someone can feign righteousness and also be righteous?'
ReplyDeleteThat is of course possible, but seldom what happens. Most self-righteous people are not pretending to be righteous; they genuinely believe it to be true. This is hardly, as you put it, 'morally reprehensible'.
Simon.
Simon said
ReplyDelete'It is quite true, as somebody remarks above, that she is without doubt the most monumentally sanctimonious and self-righteous home educator on the scene'
What a total prig you are. Your description of Jacquie fits you rather better, I think. Talk about pot calling.
"I still work with them professionally and know a number socially as well."
ReplyDeleteWell you keep making this claim, but nobody else seems to have met anyone that knows you (apart from the obvious Badman review opportunities). Of course, there are home educators who don't know any other home educators, not everyone needs groups, but then they wouldn't know you either, would they? I don't think there are any on-line home educators that I have not either met in person or have met someone else who knows them in person. Except you.
Assuming then that you you do have some home educating friends and acquaintances. Are they normal? Or are they all Machiavellian plotters or monumentally sanctimonious and self-righteous people?
' not everyone needs groups, but then they wouldn't know you either, would they'
ReplyDeleteI have been into this many times in the past. I work in Inner London as an advocate for families of children with special educational needs. Some of these families withdraw ther children from school and I help to put their views to the local authority. I also know home educators in the area where I live; none of whom belong to any group. There are tens of thousands of home educating parents and only a minority belong to organised groups or hang out on the Internet lists.
Simon.
"Most self-righteous people are not pretending to be righteous; they genuinely believe it to be true."
ReplyDeleteBut you obviously don't believe they are righteous people (as you say, they only believe they are) and since being righteous means that someone is upright and moral, you must think they are the opposite, not upright and immoral. I would have thought that someone who believes in God would consider someone who is not moral is deserving censure (or reprehensible). Or, as a believer, do you think it's OK for someone to be immoral?
"I work in Inner London as an advocate for families of children with special educational needs. Some of these families withdraw ther children from school and I help to put their views to the local authority. I also know home educators in the area where I live; none of whom belong to any group."
ReplyDeleteAnd are they normal? Or are they all Machiavellian plotters or monumentally sanctimonious and self-righteous people?
' I would have thought that someone who believes in God would consider someone who is not moral is deserving censure (or reprehensible).'
ReplyDeleteWhat an extraordinary view of religion! Nobody knows what is in a man's heart. I have no idea who is moral and who is not. Even if I did know, it would be none of my business. I have enough trouble minding my own moral standards; never mind concerning myself with other peoples! I do not in any case view smugness or satisfaction at one's own goodness as being a deadly sin. It was this which I observed in Jacquie and made a light hearted reference to. You must surely have realised that the whole thing I wrote about her being trapped here was meant to be humorous? It is no affair really of mine if she is smug and pleased with herself. Even if my impression about this is right, it hardly makes her 'morally reprehensible', as you put it!
Simon.
"You must surely have realised that the whole thing I wrote about her being trapped here was meant to be humorous?"
ReplyDeleteLOL, not the 'humorous' get out again! Maybe we should just discount everything you say as a joke? Seems appropriate.
'LOL, not the 'humorous' get out again!'
ReplyDeleteI can only say that if you thought I was being serious when I wrote:
'Jacquie sounds like a lost soul, like those dead spirits which cannot leave the Earth. If only somebody could say to her, 'Come to the light, it is time for you to go from this place. You no longer belong on Simon's blog and are free to leave now'
then perhaps I was not making myself clear enough.
Simon.
Jacquie Cox wrote: "It is lucky that I am not vindictive - many people you and I both know would take offence at your threat, and publish them out of spite."
ReplyDeleteWhat threat? Are you serious? There is no threat in what I wrote. Only an honest observation of your recent behaviour. I can see you are not open to hearing how you appear to people who aren't in the middle of all this.
And from your comments on this post and in other forums, you seem both angry and vindictive right now.
And, before you embarrass yourself further, you have got the wrong person. I don't know you (and I'm not making that up - I'm the truthful, trustworthy type). I have never been cc'ed on any email that you've been cc'ed on. You and I have never met; we've never interacted online or in real life. You have nothing to expose about me (for which I'm grateful!). I've only witnessed your recent online behaviour and I'm not impressed.
Standing up for the little guy doesn't mean you get to knock over innocent bystanders in the process. I'm a big believer in standing up for the little guy, but I find that standing beside him is a better way to do it than to lash out at everyone around him. To be honest, I don't get how anything you've been doing is really helpful to British Home Educators. It seems divisive and destructive and makes us all look rather foolish.
Perhaps I'm an idealist as I keep hoping that you've got more constructive things to do with your time. I'm sincerely glad you're happy in your personal life and I look forward to seeing evidence of that in your online communications. But I won't hold my breath...
To be fair Anonymous, I do not think Jacquie said she knew you personally at all. She said that you both know the same people. Perhaps she should publish these emails and we will know for once and for all who the email was sent to and who not.
ReplyDeleteYou seem overly defensive, especially when she said she was trying not to out you, because she did not think you had anything to do with Christopher Warren. In her place I would feel the need to be vindicated, and would certainly publish them now that you have attacked her.
I can see how prefacing a statement with "And a word to the wise" could be seen as a veiled threat. You have made this into something where she was trying not to. You have done yourself no favours, it seems Georgie doth protest too much.
Wait. Anonymous is Georgie?
ReplyDeleteI don't think Jacquie sounds sanctimonious or angry or vindictive. She is the only one who has stood up to self important idiots who use big words like sanctimonious, to make others feel inferior.
If all of you had exposed yourselves to me like you all seem to have done to her, then I would feel smug too.
Who is this anonymous anyway, and why should anyone care if they are impressed or not? Is that you Satan? :-) The only ones bitching at Jaquie seem to be the ones that have something to hide.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous is as anonymous does.
ReplyDeleteIt's all about Jacquie...
ReplyDeleteWell no actually it is all about Alison and C.C.M. Warren. Get it right will you?
ReplyDeleteReading all these comments from Anonymous & company makes me I feel like I'm in a episode of The Prisoner. "I am not a number! I am a free man!" Simon must be Number 2. Who is Number 1?
ReplyDeleteSatan? Or C Warren? Or maybe Mr Warren is Satan? It is cruel to say Simon is a number 2. I can see how you would think so with the crap that he writes.
ReplyDeleteWho is Number 1? Who is Spartacus?
ReplyDeleteYou are Number 6.
ReplyDelete'Using a pseudonym doesn't mean someone doesn't exist. Or maybe it does? In which case, you anonymous, must be a figment of my imagination, and I a figment of yours. Unless we really are called anonymous?'
ReplyDeleteYes, but the point is that I'm not pretending that my NAME is Anonymous. I have just been upfront about not wishing to be known here.
The name 'Georgie Eden' was fabricated to appear as though this person (apparently male) was a real female home educator.
The whole thing is pretty disgusting.
Nobody has 'smeared' Georgie Eden because 'she' doesn't exist.
Whether the person using that name was actually C Warren was something a previous commenter was trying to establish, not stating as fact. That's why there was a question mark, not a full stop, at the end of their sentence.
'The whole thing is pretty disgusting'
ReplyDeleteYou're telling me, never heard so much bullsht.
I'm not defensive. I'm overly sincere.
ReplyDeleteIt's what I have to tell future employers during job interviews when they ask me what my greatest weakness is. I can't help myself.
And Jacquie did think she knew who I was. That's pretty clear in her note. I hope I've set the record straight so she doesn't go on a rampage vilifying some poor, innocent soul. (Again, sincere.)
"A word to the wise" was meant to be a compliment to Jacquie - she actually seems like a thoughtful, intelligent person and could perhaps consider the ramifications of her actions, which only she is in control of. Thus, no threat. Just a "heads-up". I can't make people lose their trust in Jacquie. Only she can do that if she continues down this road. I have nothing to lose (or prove) by telling her that ... or by her posting any email (because, hello, I'm not involved). It's her integrity that's on the line, not mine.
And, friends of Jacquie responding in her defence, do you still trust her? I'm curious. Because I wouldn't trust her any further than I could bounce an anvil in a swamp, especially with any private confidence. Just saying.
- Happy to be one in a crowd of anonymity
Well I don't actually know her, but I would love to shake her hand. I have defended her because she is right. Sorry if that doesn't sit well with you.
ReplyDeleteI trust her implicitly, now that you ask. She is the only one I know who will tell the truth no matter what. It is a very rare quality. I don't like to hear it sometimes, but that is my issue not hers. Besides, I have not been duplicitous.
ReplyDeleteLike she said, your opinion is not a measure of her integrity. Just because people don't have the courage to stand up and say hell no to the stuff that has been going on, does not mean that what been going on is ok.
What is this world coming to when the only decent person in town gets these sorts of insults levelled against them? She has the courage of her convictions. She does things because it is the right thing to do, and your discomfort with that is your issue!
I don't know her either, but here here!
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone actually know her? Or is she a figment of our imagination? Maybe she is Spartacus? The girl has a lot of guts.
ReplyDeleteShe is a girl right? I mean you just never know. ;-)
More like a rather beautiful woman. I am lucky to be her friend, though I have only known her less than a year. She showed me the good in me, and never asks anything in return. You people can just suck it up!
ReplyDeleteYep me too!
ReplyDeleteSo is she Spartacus? I know I keep harping on ;-)
ReplyDelete(Actually, she's Kirk Douglas, but don't tell anyone!)
ReplyDeleteWow, go away for two days and it all kicks off!
ReplyDeleteI have known Jacquie for a few years now, though I have never met her in real life, only on-line. I also trust her completely. She has always been straight with me, and at first I would take offense but i have learned that she tells it like it is because she cares. I have had a bit of a hard life and she has never put me down. She told me one day that just because somebody says something about me it doesn't make it so. In those words she gave me back what lots of people like you took away from me all my life. Love for myself. Hope that answeres your curiosity.
"And, friends of Jacquie responding in her defence, do you still trust her?"
ReplyDeleteI trust her. I am always calling her and telling her about every aspect of my life. She knows more about me than my own mother does.
Anonymous above is right, she cares. She never says she has no time to talk, she always listens to all my problems, she is the first person I think to call when I have had a bad day. She is always there for anyone who needs her and she always seems to know when something is wrong or when I am upset. I bet you regret asking now.
And me. Anonymous if you don't know her you are poorer for it.
ReplyDelete"I bet you regret asking now."
ReplyDeleteNot at all. Sounds a bit co-dependent to me, but what do I know.
I would love to be a fly on the wall, though, when you do something she doesn't like. That's likely unnecessary, as I'll probably be able to read all about it in the comments of some blog or on some online list.
I'm glad Jacquie is sending her friends here to defend her. It means that my well meaning comments have touched her and I hope, once she gets past feeling all hot and bothered, she will think about them reflectively, perhaps doing some soul searching along the way.
Ah Anonymous, you really are a rather sad individual. I doubt anyone would bother anywhere to speak out on your behalf. I for one appreciate her honesty. The fact that you can't deal with it says so much more about you.
ReplyDeleteThose of us who know her know she has never asked for anything from any of her friends. You would be so lucky to have anyone who gave a rats backside about you. Say what you like, she wouldn't care, and neither do I. If you didn't really want to know, you should not have asked.
Odd though that such a wonderful human being should say to somebody else commenting here: 'Your personal stuff is safe with me' If one didn't know any better, it almost sounds as though she is threatening to reveal private information. I was also puzzled when she spread the news that this person was pregnant. Why would one do this? If the pregnant woman had wanted people to know about this, surely she would have told us herself?
ReplyDeleteSimon.
"Say what you like, she wouldn't care"
ReplyDeleteClearly, she does. And she should.
It is great that she has friends. But it's interesting that when she speaks "the truth", then she is noble and honourable (even when she "outs" the pregnancy of an acquaintance for no reason); but when someone else speaks the truth ("Anonymous"), then it's because he or she is a bad person.
That seems to be some sort of double standard.
I for one never believed Jacs' claim of infiltrating the "secret society" only so she could influence the outcome. In fact, all her shenanigans seem to be a reaction for not getting her own way instead of positive action that is usually associated with working for the mutual good. Anonymous is not the only person who has noticed that Jacs' motives seem suspect as she's already shared the information that seems reasonable to share, and yet she continues to follow Alison Sauer around, threatening and stamping her feet. Why?
I know that she's a wonderful person in real life, but it would be better for everyone if she was a wonderful person online, too.
There are only a few people who call Jacquie by the name Jacs. One is Tania, the other is Alison, and me, as far as I know.
ReplyDeleteFirstly, I read her post again, and she did not ever use the word 'pregnancy'. Only C did , and Simon.
C was playing the innocent and pretending that she did not know Jacquie from a bar of soap. Maybe she was afraid that she would be associated with Alison, whom she also claims she doesn't know from a bar of soap. I asked Jacquie just this morning how she knows this C individual.
C is part of a small exclusive online group apparently, and not only knows Jacquie from it, but Tania, and Alison, and Kelly, and a number of others as well. And since she won't come on here and read all this rubbish, or defend herself, I will.
I have just re-read the post above, and it strikes me as being posted by Tania. I can tell you why she is trying to discredit Jacquie now.
Tania is afraid that Simon is upset with her because she was repeating conversations that she had with Simon. She is afraid that Simon in his usual vengeful way, will write about those conversations, where Tania bangs on about all this New World Order rubbish, and show her up. Simon, she is really afraid of you!
Tania, I don't know why Jacquie allows you to get away with being so two-faced. Why don't you tell these good folks how YOU plotted against Alison with one or two of the other members of your little group? Since it is all coming out, it might as well ALL come out. Jacquie may not get angry about your back stabbing, and I can tell you Tania is the biggest back stabber in the entire HE community, but I am furious! You don't deserve to have Jacquie protecting you Tania, and I am about to tell her that very thing, if I have to go and hold this rubbish up in front of her face. You really are a despicable human being.
Tania, the only one who follows Alison around is you. Trouble is, when you follow that closely, the sh*t sticks.
'You don't deserve to have Jacquie protecting you Tania, and I am about to tell her that very thing, if I have to go and hold this rubbish up in front of her face. You really are a despicable human being.'
ReplyDeleteI thought you were moderating posts now, Simon?
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete'I know that she's a wonderful person in real life, but it would be better for everyone if she was a wonderful person online, too.'
How would you know that anonymous? What connection do you have with her?
L, I am not Tania. Or Alison. Or "C". Or any part of a "secret group". (Which is such a silly idea anyway, it makes me laugh.) You should know this from my writing style, which is very different from Tania's.
ReplyDeleteYou have been cruel and horrible to Tania and you owe her a massive apology. The only thing you've "revealed" is an inner nastiness that most people would want to keep hidden from others. Sure, tattle on Tania. Tell Jacquie that Tania is being two-faced. Maybe she is. But she didn't write that comment. She's been pretty supportive of Jacs thus far, regardless of Jacquie's behaviour.
How/when/where/why I know "Jacs" is my business alone and is not up for discussion here. What is on the table is that several people have identified Jacqueline's behaviour as being disproportionate to the situation and are calling her on it, which she apparently cannot cope with. And neither can you. Too bad.
I can buy that that post above was Tania. She is famous for making silly mistakes that give her away when she is trying to bolster her own argument by posting as someone else. Lol, she did that on another list once. It was laughable. She posted as herself and then as some guy called Alex who loyally defended her. It was during the whole argument about the 'secret group' and the guidelines. She posted as both herself and as this Alex bloke, except she forgot and used her usual profile for both. Then to cover it up she tried to say that he was some bloke who was helping her on some online page trying to catch scammers.
ReplyDeleteI've noticed that Tania posts as herself on this blog, so I don't think it's her.
ReplyDelete*sigh*
ReplyDeleteSimon, I apologise for Lin's heartfelt comment earlier. Please do remove it if you think it appropriate.
While I appreciate the comments of support, there really is no need.
Tans, when you are in a hole, you should really stop digging. I have allowed you to undermine me in public because I understood your need to not make bad friends with people on either side. You carry on ...
Now I am going to give Linny a cup of coffee and some birthday cake, because she is very upset.
Tans, you and I are done.
Still not Tania.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Tania is better off without Jacquie in her life if Jacquie is so quick to tear down her friends publicly.
Unbelievable.
It's all a bit like the school playground.
ReplyDeleteEEK!!
ReplyDeleteWell, L, sorry to disappoint you but it was not me that wrote that post on 28th at 3.43pm as in the UK it would have 07.45am and anyone who knows me and thinks about it would know that I am never up at that time !
ReplyDeleteMy only concern in the past few days was to get Simon to remove my name in association with CW because my daughters father will use misinformation like that to cause trouble.
I have no idea however, but would like to know ,how anonymous at 06.45 knew I did not write that post as I only saw this bizarre extension to this thread this morning and therefore clearly had not mentioned it to anyone...it had to be someone who knows I have been supportive of Jacs (broadly speaking I understand why she is concerned but airing anything on Simons blog is often recipe for disaster and I have told her as much)
In all of this I have not in public mentioned anything about either Jacs nor Alison nor what my opinion is and I never will.
Whatever I do think about it all I have said to the individuals involved and any of my friends whom I chat with will not be told anything different.
L , I do n not know who you are but you seem not to know too much about me as there never was any 'plotting' against Alison on my part- only trying to get the first draft rejigged and not sent to GS until there was more consensus and that my conversations with Simon Webb about NWO , which were not that I was a follower of this theory but rather how as a zionist Jew it makes me really uncomfortable.
"but would like to know ,how anonymous at 06.45 knew I did not write that post"
ReplyDeleteBecause anonymous at 06:45 wrote it? That's how I read it.
Yes that is also how I read it.The anonymous that L is having a go at goes on to say that they are not Tania Berlow .
ReplyDeleteSo who is the mysterious 'anonymous' who may or may not be Tania and why would anyone wish for others to think that they are her or conversely why on earth would she herself type such a thing ?
This anonymous claims to know Jacquie but maybe he does not. There is no limit on the amount of sh-t stirrers out there. Simon Webb does not hold the patent on that!
Anyone can pretend to be whom ever they like on blogs. Really there s no way of knowing if it is even really Jacquie making comments or just some agitator.