Sometimes, one despairs utterly of British home educators. Consider the following collection of dangerous eccentrics:
http://www.home-education.biz/blog/education/dealing-with-highly-intrusive-parasitic-public-servants
Reading this actually makes me wonder whether some of these people might genuinely be paranoid schizophrenics. Two suggestions, plucked at random from this nonsense, will illustrate what I mean.
Is your child feeling safe and secure and appearing to be psychologically healthy? Here’s a handy little hint that will soon put a stop to that! Try this:
Always tell your children how much you love them and how, if ever they were taken from you, you would never, ever stop looking for them.
It has probably never occurred to your child before that they might be taken from you. Plant the seeds of doubt in their mind and they will soon be laying awake at night, needlessly worrying about this.
Or try this;
If you are innocent and feel that your family is facing a truly significant threat, consider leaving the country before the case goes to court.
Thee is something quite terrifying about madness like this. One recognises some of the usual suspects here, people like Nikki Harper from Lincolnshire who is quoted. I do hope that local authorities are reading this stuff, so that they have an idea of the sort of disordered thinking which affects some parents supposedly capable of delivering an education to their children.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
'if you are innocent and feel that your family is facing a truly significant threat,consider leaving the country before the case goes to court.'
ReplyDeleteJust like Martin and Lianne Smith did.
'reading this actually makes me wonder whether some of these people might genuinely be paranoid schizophrenics'
ReplyDeleteI read through the blog and notice Neil Taylor is mentioned quite regularly. As I recall, he once wrote that he is bipolar.
'Just like Martin and Lianne Smith did.'
ReplyDeleteYes, I also was reminded of that unfortunate couple.
Simon.
Oh, are you one of those people that think that Martin Smith was innocent then? Since the comment you quote states, 'if you are innocent...'
ReplyDeleteIt reminded me of that Norfolk couple who were accused of breaking one of their children's bones so all their children were taking into care and adopted. I'm generally against the 'flee' advice, but I can't help wondering what their life would have been like if they had.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8363499/Ombudsman-could-investigate-child-snatching-by-courts.html
'Oh, are you one of those people that think that Martin Smith was innocent then? Since the comment you quote states, 'if you are innocent...'
ReplyDeleteI am not. I describe them as an unfortunate couple because it is surely unfortunate to be either a rapist or murderer.
Simon.
I didn't really think you thought they were innocent, Simon.
ReplyDelete'I didn't really think you thought they were innocent, Simon.'
ReplyDeleteWhat a mercy that is! I was beginning to worry that I was losing the ability coherently to express myself.
you have to take what ever action you feel will protect your children from LEA.s that tell lies and say things that are not quite true you do the same to protect your daughter webb?
ReplyDeleteonce a half truth or a lie is told about a family it is very hard to get it removed from the file! and other LEA officers almost always belive what has been writien down about a family
emails are sent by LEA officers to each other saying making snap judements about a family no real evidence is ever given just what an LEA officers belives if you challege them there dont like it!
Do LEA tell Lies Webb?
ReplyDelete"What a mercy that is! I was beginning to worry that I was losing the ability coherently to express myself."
ReplyDeleteIt's your reading comprehension I doubted.
The home-education.biz blog reads like the blog of a religious cult member.
ReplyDeleteYou can't help but notice those HE buzz words in this self indulgent codswallop..
ReplyDeleteThe classic...
'Ultra Vires'
Followed by the big up 'freethinking', 'autonomous' and 'self reliant'.
Yeah riiiight...the home edders I've met have none of those qualities, they're informed by the likes of MF-W and his buddie Neil Taylor and backed up with recycled legal advice from that barrister bloke and EO.
Her rant then ushers in the panto villain 'Badman', followed by the emotive term, 'ad nauseam'.
Then comes the customary nod to popular culture, anyone remember when the 'in' quote was lyrics from Pink Floyd? The Wall..If you don't, you had to be there at HESFES watching the F-Ws perform like some deranged version of the Von Trapp family.
They sang 'We don't need no education', and they proved it so very well.
This time round AP has lifted the tag from a really old TV series and mediocre sci fi movie.
'resistance is futile'.
In terms of bullshit bingo, Alison Preuss managed to hit a full house even before the close of her piece.
Funny you should mention the Von Trapps, I had in mind for our next LEA visit, the children arranged on the stairs singing "so long, farewell"
DeleteReading your rants here, you must have fit in so well before you had your falling out...
ReplyDelete'Fit in so well'....
DeleteReading your responses, it's pretty evident you bought the whole package.
'Fit in so well'?
DeleteSo, explain for us all.
What do you feel we all need to fit into?
Blind acceptance of EO nonsensical rhetoric, MF-Ws dodgy statistical data and propaganda?Hey, they're not always correct.
Or fit in with openly aggressive types, who've got thrown out of school and deserve an ASBO if they aren't already tagged.
The various religious nuts, trying to foist their numerous and nebulous beliefs on others?
The dietary right wingers?
The political fruitcakes and their Antisemitic conspiracy theories?
The SENs/OCDs/ADDs/ADHDs?
The haters?
Or the outright nutters?
Sooner or later you accept that some of those people need to embrace diversity within society and start to realise that the universe doesn't revolve around them and their offspring.
I didn't suggest that fitting in is a good thing, quite the opposite. Unless you think that 'rant' is a complement, I suppose...
DeleteMy personal favourite has to be "remember the superficial too.......make sure that your house is clean and tidy, and that you and your children are dressed and well presented"
ReplyDeleteIs this a script from the spoof documentary series, The Day Today ? It certainly reads like one!
My apologies I meant spoof documentary Brass Eye
DeleteRead with interest the bit where 'Mirky' talks about Jon Ronson's 'The Psychopath Test'.
ReplyDeleteMirky either hasn't read the book or has completely misunderstood it.
Neil Taylor has read the book, understood it...and loves to plagiarise huge chunks of it.
DeleteQuite amused by Sheila's link to Neil Taylor's NWO/Rockerfeller conspiracy theories.
ReplyDeleteThe best part is...that particular conspiracy theory has it's roots in Antisemitism.
And from those nasty Nazi little roots it just grows all the more pernicious and offensive.
ReplyDeleteGoing all the way through the Atlantean and Lizard phases, branching into UFO sci fi drama, blossoms with secret society intrigue. Finally bears an evil smelling fruit of 9/11 conspiracy.
Are all 20 of these responses from the same person? Very strange string of comments.
ReplyDeleteMind you, I've not read the articles mentioned in Simon's post which I don't doubt are equally odd.
Old Mum
You should read the articles before you judge how odd or strange you find comments made here.
ReplyDeleteIt has always been said that the truth is stranger than fiction.
Do you really trust people who constantly refer to New World Order Conspiracies while discussing education?
Do you care that those same conspiracies are proven to be derived from The Protocols of The Elders Of Zion?
It sort of disturbs me when I run into someone who has so much influence over non mainstream education and naive people. It's quite a concern to find that they're away with the Nazi faeries, Aliens or waiting for the Lizard people to take over the planet.
And....I'm really disturbed by Antisemitism.
One of my favourite parts.... checking peoples hard drives??
ReplyDeleteKeep the door bolted and do not allow strangers access to your home unless by invitation. Always ask for references (visit their homes and examine their computer hard drives if at all possible J). Never leave them alone with your children, no matter how friendly they appear.
I think that's probably a reference to the number of teachers/LA employees/child care workers/police officers that have been found and prosecuted for having child pornography on their hard drives at home.
ReplyDeleteClicked Publish before I'd finished...
ReplyDeleteIf they can justify visiting us and checking us out at home to ensure we are safe to spend time with our own children, shouldn't we be able to return the favour and check out the homes of professionals who spend time with children?
'If they can justify visiting us and checking us out at home to ensure we are safe to spend time with our own children'
ReplyDeleteThis might be the case if the majority of visits made to home educating families were 'safe and well checks', but they are not. Nearly always, the aim is to establish that the child is receiving a suitable education. I don't believe that any of these visits result in the hard drives of home educating parents being examined. I really can't see why any parent educating a child at home would wish to see hard drive from the computer of an Education Welfare Officer!
But the discussion on the page you reference (and therefore the subject of the comment we are discussing) isn't the usual education home visits (which incidentally must include consideration of the child's safety and welfare on the part of the LA employee - it's the law). It states at the top that it's about, "[the] policy of universal early intervention and forced delivery of compulsory ‘services’".
Delete'But the discussion on the page you reference (and therefore the subject of the comment we are discussing) isn't the usual education home visits (which incidentally must include consideration of the child's safety and welfare on the part of the LA employee - it's the law). It states at the top that it's about, "[the] policy of universal early intervention and forced delivery of compulsory ‘services’".'
ReplyDeleteYes, but since there is no such thing as 'forced delivery of compulsory ‘services’, I thought that I would talk about the real world instead!
'isn't the usual education home visits (which incidentally must include consideration of the child's safety and welfare on the part of the LA employee - it's the law).'
Could you tell us a little more about this law?
Section 175 of the Education Act 2002 states:
ReplyDelete"175. Duties of LEAs and governing bodies in relation to welfare of children
(1)A local education authority shall make arrangements for ensuring that the functions conferred on them in their capacity as a local education authority are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children."
So if fulfil their informal enquiry duties by carrying out a home visit, they must consider child safety and welfare whilst they do so.
Keep missing out words!
ReplyDeleteSo if *they* fulfil their informal... etc
"Yes, but since there is no such thing as 'forced delivery of compulsory ‘services’, I thought that I would talk about the real world instead!"
ReplyDeleteWell if you are going to retrospectively change the subject of the conversation (whether or not you think the original subject is justified or accurate), you can't really expect it to make sense!
'(1)A local education authority shall make arrangements for ensuring that the functions conferred on them in their capacity as a local education authority are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children."'
ReplyDeleteThis is a general duty which applies as much to lollipop men and dinner ladies as anybody else in the employ of a local authority. It certainly does not mean that they, any more than any other employee, are looking to prove that a home educating parent is neglecting or abusing a child.
"It certainly does not mean that they, any more than any other employee, are looking to prove that a home educating parent is neglecting or abusing a child."
DeleteThe section places a legal duty for LA employees to "ensuring that the functions conferred on them in their capacity as a local education authority are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children."
Before this law was brought in, they just had the same responsibility as any member of the public (i.e. no legal requirement to act). Now they can be held accountable if they do not consider safety and welfare concerns whilst carrying out their duties. It's not just a case of, if they happen to notice something they must report it. They must actively think about safety and welfare whilst visiting home educators in order to comply with this duty. At least, that's how the phrase, 'exercised with a view', is being interpreted by LAs. This section is specifically quoted on virtually all LA Elective Home Education web pages and the government's EHE guidelines, for instance.
Hackney heads their EHE form by quoting section of law alone, www.learningtrust.co.uk/schools/ehe/docs/Parents_statement.doc, no mention of section 7, etc.
This section is taken seriously by LAs, you only need to read their guidelines to staff to know this. For instance, in Barking and Dagenham, if a HE family with a statemented child (or are a Roma or traveller) does not allow a home visit their provision will automatically be considered unsuitable and referrals to social services and others considered. They continue, "Until the Education Monitoring Manager is confident that the provision is safe, suitable and efficient, monitoring should be attempted at no less than monthly intervals. If the child is not seen, attempts should be made to monitor again at the earliest opportunity."
I'm not sure why it could be assumed the home was safe when the child was at school but isn't now. All of this is justified in the document by section 175.
www.lbbd.gov.uk/Education/Documents/ElectiveHomeEducationpolicy.doc
'Well if you are going to retrospectively change the subject of the conversation (whether or not you think the original subject is justified or accurate), you can't really expect it to make sense!'
ReplyDeleteAh, I see how this misunderstanding has arisen. The topic of the conversation as far as I was concerned, and I thought I made this clear in the orginal post, was how raving mad some home educators are. You apparently understood me to be talking about the finer details of this madness, such as the idea that there is forced delivery of compulsory services to parents.
"Ah, I see how this misunderstanding has arisen. The topic of the conversation as far as I was concerned, and I thought I made this clear in the orginal post,"
DeleteAh, I see how this misunderstanding has arisen. The topic of the conversation within the comments, the bit you were responded to in this instance, was about a particular comment on the referenced page rather than your blog article.
'The section places a legal duty for LA employees to "ensuring that the functions conferred on them in their capacity as a local education authority are exercised with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children." '
ReplyDeleteAs I said, this is a general duty placed upon all employees of the local authority, not merely those dealing with home education. I hope that you don't really think that dinners ladies are observing the children they serve, in order to check that they are safe and well?
Simon.
Yes, I do think they would have to carry out their duties with a view to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. Usually this would mean that they would ensure that hot kitchen equipment could not burn children, for instance. And if a dinner lady heard a child talking about abuse they would be expected to report it to the appropriate teacher. Hopefully both of these would always have happened, but pre-2002 this would not have been a legal requirement. It is now.
DeleteHere's a document issued by a school to all staff (and they specifically include dinner ladies), the SAFEGUARDING CHILDREN/CHILD PROTECTION POLICY. It covers such subjects as, signs of possible abuse (unexplained injuries or burns, any injuries not consistent with the explanation given for them or several different explanations provided for an injury eg bruising, bite marks, burns, scars and even fractures etc), contact details for agency involvement, the need to avoid using leading questions, procedures for dealing with abuse by other pupils, the schools reporting arrangements, etc. So yes, dinner ladies are expected to monitor children for signs of abuse in schools.
Deletehttp://preview.tinyurl.com/7mbr7nd
' I hope that you don't really think that dinners ladies are observing the children they serve, in order to check that they are safe and well?'
ReplyDelete'So yes, dinner ladies are expected to monitor children for signs of abuse in schools.'
The vast chasm between the reality of the world and the way that many home educators believe that the world works. Dinner ladies are not looking for signs of abuse, any more than in general are those visiting the homes of home educators. Of course there are two million policies and directives that every member of staff and employee of a local authority should follow. In practice, nobody has even heard of these duties. I am talking about the way things are; you are talking about the way that they might be in some platonic realm, where ideas are more real than people and things.
Simon.
So you don't think that if abuse should have been spotted if staff had abided by these policy documents, that staff will not be scapegoated by employers and the press if they fail? Or that staff aren't aware of this danger and act accordingly, and possibly overzealously on occasion?
DeleteThink also of the emphasis placed on that section by local authorities with regards to HE. They quote very little law on their EHE web pages, but that one is invariably there. It's clearly a high priority for them. I think it's you that are living in a dream world, my friend. Your reductio ad absurdum approach to the point proves nothing.
'Your reductio ad absurdum approach to the point proves nothing.'
ReplyDeleteI'm afraid that the odd Latin tag lends no force to your argument. Those working for local authorities are only too well aware that there are countless documents dictating every aspect of their working lives. Most of them are ignored. Any local authority officer might of course have a duty to report welfare concerns. If these were gross and obvious, she would do so, regardless of the legal position. They do not in general go sniffing around for such things though, any more than do school teachers. In other words, the primary purpose of entering the home of a home educator is to check out the education. If the child were covered in scars or showing signs of malnutrition, I dare say that this would be reported. This is no more really than any ordinary, concerned citizen would do. As I say, there is a wide gulf between the theory on paper and the practice on the ground.
Simon.
Well it's your prerogative to refuse to remove your rose tinted glasses. We'll just have to agree to differ.
Delete