Friday 17 August 2012

'Cruelty to children





One of the less attractive features of the campaign against Graham Badman’s proposals becoming law, was the psychological cruelty inflicted by a number of parents upon  their children, some of whom had special educational needs. During my own daughter’s childhood, I always conceived it to be a major part of my duty,  to protect her from distress and shield her from worry. To reassure her, in fact, that she was safe and that there was nothing to worry about.  This was not at all the line taken by some home educating parents in the run-up to the passage of the Children, Schools and Families Bill through parliament! For them, this was a golden opportunity to make their children anxious and in some cases hysterical with fear; simply so that they could claim that their children were being harmed by the very discussion of increased regulation of home education.

This is not a history lesson and if this sort of cruelty had ended with the abandonment of the CSF Bill in 2010, there would be little point in raking over the ashes. Unfortunately, it has not and there are still parents who are determined to exploit vulnerable children in order to make political capital of them. Consider this, which was less than three months ago:



http://www.home-education.biz/blog/education/dealing-with-highly-intrusive-parasitic-public-servants




Look at the advice given in the above post:



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. Encourage them to respect their instincts and always to question the morality of authority. Make sure they learn their personal details as soon as they are old enough and tell them that wherever they are and whatever the circumstances they can always contact you.


I can imagine nothing more likely to terrify a young child out of her wits than to suggest the possibility that she might be snatched from the security of her family. It is the sort of thing which would cause most children to lay awake at night in terror, waiting to be taken. Why would you do that to your child? The answer is that you can then use your child’s response to brandish at local authorities or other people who wish to discuss a change in the law. ‘Look,’ you can tell them, ‘You have upset my child and she is now nervous and clingy, because she is frightened that social workers are about to snatch her away from her family.’

This was done by quite a few parents during the aftermath of the Badman Review. They used to boast about it on various lists. One mother announced that her son, who had developmental problems and was on the autistic spectrum, had had a ‘major meltdown’ when she told him that the authorities would be able to take  him away from her for interrogation alone! I had hoped that mistreatment of this sort had ended, but judging from some of the things I have been hearing lately, it has not. There are still parents frightening their children in this way and warning them that the government wants to enter their homes and perhaps take them from their families.

I am expecting to see more of this sort of thing when the enquiry starts in Wales about the possibility of registration of home educated children. Incidentally, despite Alison Sauer’s irritation at my mentioning the proposals contained in the bill which the Welsh Assembly hopes  to pass in the next year or so, I observe that others have picked up on the thing since I posted about it here. As I suspected, few people knew of it, but this has now been remedied. I am all in favour of change in the law, but I certainly believe that it should be discussed openly beforehand.



20 comments:

  1. You should never underestimate the amount of upset or distress some parents are happy to cause their own children.

    Sadly Simons examples are not the only ones. Take a look at many childrens sporting events that take place up and down the country to see parents who are happy to scream at their children from the sidelines, simply because they missed the goal or didnt score a try etc.

    Also when parents separate many children are used by one or both parents to try to secure a better outcome when the divorce takes place. No thought is given to the children as the parents try to convince them that they are the best parent to live with.

    Like Simon I try to protect my children as much as I can although my eldest has never forgiven me for putting him in a Bolton Wanderers top as a toddler. He says he is scarred for life...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well said, Simon. Although I was as strongly opposed to the whole 'Badman thing' as anyone I was always uncomfortable at being 'on the same side' as the sort of maniacs you describe here. I've observed this kind of behaviour many times. It seems a bit like Münchausen's by proxy, but with hysterical fear instead of physical ailments.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The hysteria was being stirred up by HE-UK and most other websites..there were those activist types urging people to behave like that.
      Actually, you couldn't help thinking that they were urging people to behave like neurotic and insecure imbeciles.

      Delete
  3. Having said that, I just looked it up and according to Wikipedia at least, psychological ailments are included. So Badman's infamous statement about thst was perhaps not so far off the mark.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh no, not another amateur psychiatrist making diagnoses over the internet! Simon, you seem to be collecting them!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well...at least their activities on the internet appear to be restricted to the Wiki pages.

      You on the otherhand, appear to be one of those odd little trolls who frequent blogs and porn sites.

      Delete
    2. Ahh! The resident psychic steps forward and takes a bow!

      Delete
    3. I remember you using the same line at HESFES, that time when you were caught sniffing bike saddles.

      Delete
    4. Just to say, you're not very good at this psychic lark and should maybe try a different career. I don't think you'd be able to trick enough people out of money to survive with that act.

      Delete
    5. You've never had a job let alone a career.

      Delete
    6. LOL, you are such an atrocious psychic, you should really look for a different job. I've had several jobs before starting my own business which currently has a 6 figure turnover. I wouldn't call it a career necessarily, but it's a good living.

      Delete
    7. Bullshit....
      If you had a business with a six figure turnover you wouldn't be wasting your time on here.

      Delete
    8. Business just doesn't work that way...and neither do you.
      It's probably best if you go back to your T.V and continue making up your little fantasies about winning over Alan Sugar on 'The Apprentice'.

      Delete
    9. I see from a comment you made on another thread about an "internet bullshitter who claims to have an annual turnover of millions", that you think a six figure turnover means an income of millions, which probably explains you bewilderment. For one thing, a six figure turnover is between 100,000 and 999,999, so at most it's just under one million (and our turnover is nowhere near a million).

      For another, if you knew anything about business you would know that turnover has little to do with actual income. Costs have to be deducted from the turnover figure to arrive at income, so though I make a good living, it would be a speck in the eye of the likes of Alan Sugar or his successful apprentices and is actually below the national average wage. But then, I do only work for 20-30 hours a week, so I have lots of spare time.

      Delete
    10. Ohh....you are so funny, some might find it sad, but me, I find you funny.

      Delete
    11. I must hand it to you your research is quite impressive but it's really very revealing..
      It tends to show that you're either a compulsive/pathological liar or a sociopath, your problem is it's all rather indicative of a much larger personality disorder.

      Delete
    12. I'm beginning to think that it's you that needs the help. Falling into your bad habit of internet diagnosis, you sound as though you may suffer from Paranoid Personality Disorder, "Paranoid Personality Disorder is a condition characterized by excessive distrust and suspiciousness of others". But whatever, it's obviously pointless even attempting to converse with you since you don't believe anything anyone ever says to you. You do the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears chanting 'liar, liar, liar', so I'll leave you alone to play your little games. Bye.

      Delete


  5. Simon is quite right that it is wrong to allow one's children to feel fear in a situation like this which was only ever a 'possibility' not a certainty.

    However, I don't believe that this is what was happening during the Bdman process: 'parents who are determined to exploit vulnerable children in order to make political capital of them.'

    Some of the teens were made aware of the proposal. I know some of them had a very informative and interesting time visiting parliament to see their MPs which is part of the democratic process. Simon met and chatted to some that day. Were any of them cowering with anxiety?

    I don't know what the commenter is going on about. I must have met hundreds of home educators over the years and none with MBP. I simply don't buy this idea.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ' Simon met and chatted to some that day. Were any of them cowering with anxiety?'

    Are we to induce from this that you were there at Portcullis House that day three years ago, Old Mum? Of course, these were not young children, such as would be likely to be frightened of being taken away from Mummy! Also, i gained the impression that they were fifteen or sixteen and so unlikely in any case to have been affected by the time the CSF Bill was passed.
    Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  7. No, I wasn't. However, I remember you blogging about conversations which you had had with the young people.

    ReplyDelete