Thursday 16 August 2012
Our opponents…
On one of the major home education lists recently, somebody commenting referred to ‘our opponents’; meaning those in the government and local authorities who seek to introduce measures such as the registration of home educators. This casual remark was revealing in the extreme, because this is just precisely how some parents educating their children at home view the ‘authorities’.
For over twenty years I had professional dealings with local authority officers in various capacities. My wife is a social worker and most of our friends are either social workers or teachers. I can truthfully say that I have never in all that time encountered a single local authority officer or social worker who was opposed in principle to home education. A few teachers are, but that is only to be expected. Having spent years training for what they believe to be a profession, it is irritating to see a bunch of amateurs undertaking the same kind of work with no training. Their reaction is pretty much what you would expect of a federation of plumbers if they heard of a movement which encourage people to carry out their own repairs on pipes. They don’t like it and predict that it will end in disaster!
As for everybody else, all the professionals apart from teachers, many of them certainly want extra safeguards and checks, but nobody is opposed to home education. I spoke to Graham Badman three years ago and I did not get the least feeling that he was opposed to home education either. I have also met some of the more notorious figures from home education departments in various parts of the country, individuals like Myra Robinson and Tony Mooney. None of these people are ’opponents’ of home education.
The rules, regulations and laws regarding practically every activity known to humanity are changing all the time. This is the case whether we are talking about forestry, smoking in cinemas, commercial kitchens, driving, education or anything else you care to think of. It strikes me that many home educators are having difficulty with the concept of change. They are reactionaries, who want everything to remain just as it has always been in the past. This is not a realistic wish; all things are in a state of flux and nowhere is this more true that of human society and institutions. Instead of treating those who want the law to change as enemies, we would perhaps do better to work with them to hammer out a new set of arrangements which, while not fully satisfying either side, might perhaps be just about acceptable to all. Thinking of those who seek change as ’opponents’ is singularly unhelpful and will, in the long run, prove damaging to the best interests of all home educators.
Still regularly reading an email list you were banned from, I see. Do you still maintain that some mystery person is forwarding all list messages to you? And they've done this for years? It seems a bit of a contorted approach to reading the list. Why not just sign up with a different email list (if you haven't already)? But I suppose if you admit to this your frequent claims that you always use your own name on the internet would be questioned. There is little effective difference between either approach since you are effectively a member of the list under your forwarders email address. It's almost as though you see yourself as an opponent of that list and feel the need to spy on it...
ReplyDeleteThe department of education is on record as stating, "We believe the best place to educate a child is actually in school." Unless you agree with this statement, you hold an opposing view - you are an opponent of the department of education on this issue.
ReplyDelete'Still regularly reading an email list you were banned from, I see. Do you still maintain that some mystery person is forwarding all list messages to you?'
ReplyDeleteIt is not my custom to be rude to those commenting on here, as regular readers will know, but you really are a prize idiot. Do you have a family? Are members of your family on lists to which you do not belong? If you are not on Facebook, have you ever asked somebody who is on it to look at something for you? In our house there are three computers and it is quite common for one of us to say to the other, can you check such and such for me. I, for instance, am not on Facebook and have to ask my daughter to look at things on there for me.
One final point. I had had no dealings of any sort with HE-UK for a long while, until a month or so ago. That was the time that Mike Fortune-Wood took it into his head to try and help somebody have me arrested. Do you really suppose that I am going to ignore that sort of thing? Do you imagine that I will let people engage in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by coaching potential witnesses in what they should tell the police and simply sit back and let them get on with it? The best that I can say of you is that you are a fool and a dunderhead and that is putting the case mildly.
So the mole is a family member, interesting. Badman's family also joined HE lists in much the same way, have you been taking lessons? Have they signed up using their real name? I suspect not. So effectively you are still a member of the list you were banned from.
DeleteDo you have any evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by coaching potential witnesses, beyond the email Mike sent to the list (which is clearly not evidence of this behaviour, it simply being a call for victims to come forward)? If you have no evidence, this is libel, though I suspect you know you have little to fear because you know that they can't afford to take you to court. One law for the rich, another for the poor...
"One final point. I had had no dealings of any sort with HE-UK for a long while, until a month or so ago."
DeleteSo you don't count calling HE-UK members loonies and discussions about the literacy of HE-UK list members and the help they may receive from list members to produce reports for LAs in June? And complaints about being chucked off the list less than a year before?
I like the word 'dunderhead'. I think it should be used more.
ReplyDelete'The department of education is on record as stating, "We believe the best place to educate a child is actually in school." Unless you agree with this statement, you hold an opposing view - you are an opponent of the department of education on this issue.'
ReplyDeleteAh, I think I see what you are saying. Because I do not believe that God delivered a message to the prophet Mohammed, that makes me an opponent of Islam. Have I got that right? I prefer the Look and Say method of teaching reading and so I am an opponent of those devilish synthetic phonics followers? The fact that you have this perception says much.
Not at all. I'm simply suggesting that there is more than one way to use the word, 'opponents'. If you hold opposing views you are an opponent on that issue. Also, you seem to suggest in the article that officials are neutral on this issue, when clearly that's not the case, since they believe that children are best educated in schools.
Delete"Ah, I think I see what you are saying. Because I do not believe that God delivered a message to the prophet Mohammed, that makes me an opponent of Islam."
DeleteWell clearly you oppose their view on the historical facts, so how are you not an opponent of Islam? Or do you think that being an opponent requires some kind of physical action against Islam on your part?
Mohammed might have viewed it that way, and the Taliban do view it that way.
DeleteYou're an opponent of Islam.
Things have definitely been changing in the HE world. 20 years ago almost all HE families saw 'inspectors' albeit reluctantly.
ReplyDelete15 years ago a few people started saying, 'Actually, why should we? The law doesn't say we *have* to!' Gradually, more and more people started to refuse, probably encouraged by the frequent tales of LA officers overstepping their authority or causing problems for some families.
Now, if you allow visits you could well be attacked on your local list for being some sort of quisling. I suspect that the wheel is about to turn again.
This is clearly a regional thing since the members of my local list hold a range of views on this issue, including some who claim that those who don't want visits are rocking the boat and clearly have something to hide!
DeleteQuite possibly our area is behind the curve.
DeleteHere's an official example of the number of known HE families who accept visits in one area from a LA officer:
Delete"One stated that of the 50 home educating families that she was in contact with, five had refused to meet with her."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmchilsch/39/3914.htm
When we started home educating we would have liked a little more help from our LA. Particularly in relation to exams. Unfortunately it is almost as if the LA are afraid to offer us any advice - in case this was misinterpreted as being intrusive.
ReplyDeleteAs for actually inviting the LA representatives in, it would be wiser and prudent not to confess doing such. Indeed one would be wise to only invite them in under the cover of darkness, or else pretend to be two strangers who happen to sit upon the same park bench by complete random chance.
If you take such an attitude to those who disagree with your choices it's hardly surprising that some local groups are in the state they are in! If you kowtowed to others in society who believe that school is best in the same way you wouldn't be HE at all! Grow a backbone!
DeleteI don't think that the LA is afraid to offer advice about exams. They just don't have any to offer.
DeleteMany seem to still believe that, as one local LA man said recently, 'You can't sit exams as a home educated child. It's impossible for parents.' Fortunately, plenty of local parents were able to point to their HE children's excellent results are proof of the opposite.
The expertise is available from experienced parents, but not usually from the LA.
'If you kowtowed to others in society who believe that school is best in the same way you wouldn't be HE at all! Grow a backbone!'
DeleteRousing words from another person posting Anonymously. And with good reason, I don't doubt.
Yes, quite possibly the same reasons you post anonymously.
DeleteAs a former teacher and a former homeschool mum I agree with the need to check that kids are not abuse or neglet, not at school not at home.The point is to be sure they are not victims of any form of violence in any place.
ReplyDelete'So the mole is a family member,'
ReplyDeleteOh dear, somebody has been reading too many novels by John Le Carre! My wife simply joined the HE-UK list under her own name, using her usual email address and describing her home educating experiences truthfully. Being an up-to-date and modern couple, she did not change her name on marriage and so has a different surname to mine. She was not asked any questions when joining about cohabiting with any Webbs and so saw need to mention it.
'Do you have any evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by coaching potential witnesses, beyond the email Mike sent to the list '
When somebody tries to encourage strangers that they have been victims of a criminal offence and urges them to contact the police, it is hard to know what else to describe it as, other than a conspiracy. A number of people have been irritated to be mentioned on here over the years in connection with home education. Not one has ever felt as though she was a victim of an offence under the 1997 Protection from Harrassment Act. Maire Stafford was contacting people and telling them that if they would agree that they felt themselves to have been criminally harrassed by me, then it might be possible to have me arrested. Mike Fortune-Wood knew all about this and agreed to put a message on the HE-UK list, trawling for people who might allow their names to be used in this way. Perhaps readers would like to suggest another expression, apart from conspiring to pervert the course of justice, which would adequately describe this course of action?
'Well clearly you oppose their view on the historical facts, so how are you not an opponent of Islam? '
ReplyDeleteI was happy to worship God in mosques in Arab countries, just as when I lived in Israel, I worshipped in synagogues. I attend church without believing that Jesus was God incarnate. Why on earth should I see myself as an opponent of Islam?
Similarly, I believe that home education is a good thing for some children, although others are more suited to school. Generally, we can find common ground with those whose views differ from our own. This is more profitable than talking of them as our 'opponents'. Often, we have a lot in common once we talk.
My point is, it's possible to hold opposing views - to be in opposition - without it meaning that you are at war with someone, and you make my point well here. I think you over reacted to the use of the word on the HE-UK list. Is that clearer for you now?
Delete''Do you have any evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by coaching potential witnesses, beyond the email Mike sent to the list '
ReplyDeleteI might mention that as soon as I heard that Nikki Harper had, at Maire Stafford's urging, reported me to the police in Lincolnshire, I did what any law abiding citizen would have done and contacted the police. I gave them my details and told them that I was happy to be arrested. They seemed a little bemused and assured me that as far as they were concerned, no offence had been committed. When I told them that the supposed victim of my harrassment was advertising for others to come forward and claim to have been victimised by me, they were far from impressed! They asked if I wished to make a formal allegation against Nikki Harper and Maire Stafford, accusing them of harrassing me! Needless to say, I declined.
Just to explain the situation from the police point of view, imagine this scenario. Somebody tells them that I have burgled their house. The police investigate and decide that no offence has been committed. The person who made the complaint then advertises on the internet for anybody else who will claim that I have burgled them. The obvious question which the police would ask is, 'Why didn't you report this at the time?' I think it fair to say that in a case like this, the police would definitely be thinking in terms of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. If people do not wish for their names to be associated with an expression of this sort, then the best thing to do would be not to get mixed up in a racket of this sort.
Is there really anybody reading this who can't see why I am keeping a friendly eye on the HE-UK list and will be for the foreseeable future?
"I think it fair to say that in a case like this, the police would definitely be thinking in terms of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice."
ReplyDeletePerverting the course of justice means that someone has fabricated or disposed of evidence, intimidated or threatened a witness or juror, or itimidated or threatened a judge. Which do you claim Mike did when he sent that email?
"When somebody tries to encourage strangers that they have been victims of a criminal offence and urges them to contact the police, it is hard to know what else to describe it as, other than a conspiracy."
ReplyDeleteRubbish. If someone came forward and lied about being a victim, they would be perverting the course of justice, not the person who asked for people to come forward if they had been a victim! The police often make similar calls for victims to come forward when they suspect a rapist is a repeat offender or in instances of child abuse in group homes, for instance. Are you suggesting that these are conspiracies too?
'Which do you claim Mike did when he sent that email?'
ReplyDeleteI claim that Mike Fortune-Wood had been told by Maire Stafford that an attempt was being made to have me arrested for an offence under the 1997 Protection from Harrassment Act. She told him that she wished to gather together a group of people who would, after she had presented the matter in the correct light, allege that they had been criminally harrassed by me. I further claim that Mike Fortune-Wood had no grounds for believing that I had committed any offence and offered to help Maire Stafford not in the interests of justice, but rather because I has annoyed him over the last three years or so. Advertising for people who will claim to have been the victims of a criminal offence is a very dubious activity and one which can easily backfire.
So you have no evidence that anyone attempted to pervert the course of justice and your suggestion here is libellous.
DeleteYour definition of a conspiracy would also include class actions lawsuits. And you criticize home educators for being conspiracy theorists!
ReplyDelete'The police often make similar calls for victims to come forward when they suspect a rapist is a repeat offender or in instances of child abuse in group homes, for instance. Are you suggesting that these are conspiracies too?'
ReplyDeleteOf course not. I have been convicted of no offence, nor am I suspected by the police of having committed any offence. If I started asking on here for people to come forward and claim that Maire Stafford had committed criminal offences against them, I would be on very shaky legal ground; particularly if I told them what they would have to say to the police in order for her to be arrested!
'Your definition of a conspiracy would also include class actions lawsuits'
ReplyDeleteNot a conspiracy at all. This was the basis of the claim which Maire Stafford was trying get off the ground; that I had harrassed an entire class of person. It is possible under the PfH Act.
That's not what a class action is!
DeleteBut in such an action, they would advertise for people who have been affected to come forward. Exactly what you describe happening here. Why is it OK in one instance, but not the other?
DeletePfH Act?
Delete" If I started asking on here for people to come forward and claim that Maire Stafford had committed criminal offences against them, I would be on very shaky legal ground"
ReplyDeleteWhy? What crime would you be committing? It would only be a crime if you asked people to lie. I suppose if you had absolutely no evidence that any criminal offence had ever been committed you might be guilty of libel, but presumably you wouldn't ask for people to come forward if that was the case.
Anybody notice how some of those from the HE-UK list have skillfully diverted discussion onto the topic of libel and away from the subject of the post itself, which was about the inevitability of change in all areas of life? This is not the first time that I have seen this happen and not only here either.
ReplyDelete'Why? What crime would you be committing?'
ReplyDeleteIf I said to people, 'In order for the police to take any notice, you will have to say X and Y and claim Z', then this would be sailing very close to the wind as regards fabricating evidence. If the police discovered that I had been encouraging people to contact them and accuse Maire Stafford of various crimes, and that I had given them detailed instructions of what they would have to say, this would not please them. Depending upon the crime which I was trying to get people to accuse her of, I might well find myself being arrested. The possible offences range from wasting police time to conspiring to pervert the course of justice.
I am sorry that nobody else sees how bizarre it would be for me to try to persuade them that they were victims of a crime committed by Maire Stafford. Most people know when they have been victims of a crime and do not need anybody to tell them what the crime was and what they must say to the police in order to make them sit up and take notice.
I have a few emails which Maire Stafford sent to people about this, which somebody was kind enough to forward to me. I am tempted to post them here to illustrate what i am talking about.
So you have evidence that at least one person attempted to pervert the course of justice. At last - it's like trying to get blood out of a stone. Post away!
ReplyDelete'So you have evidence that at least one person attempted to pervert the course of justice. At last - it's like trying to get blood out of a stone. '
ReplyDeleteWell yes, that was what I said in the first place:
'That was the time that Mike Fortune-Wood took it into his head to try and help somebody have me arrested. Do you really suppose that I am going to ignore that sort of thing? Do you imagine that I will let people engage in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by coaching potential witnesses in what they should tell the police and simply sit back and let them get on with it?'
So you also have evidence that Mike was aware of these emails you claim to have?
DeleteThat's not what you said before. Now you are claiming to have evidence that one person attempted to pervert the course of justice (though we have to take your word for that apparently). Before you said that it was a conspiracy and that Mike was involved. Mike's email to the list merely asks people who think they were victimised by you to come forward. This is not evidence of either a conspiracy or an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
Delete'So you also have evidence that Mike was aware of these emails you claim to have?'
ReplyDeleteI said nothing of the sort. I said that he offered to help somebody who was trying to have me arrested on spurious grounds; grounds that he knew very well did not constitute a criminal offence. The whole thing was done very neatly. Mike Fortune-Wood was told by Maire Stafford what the plan was and then posted saying nothing about the police at all. He merely talked of people whose personal details had appeared on here. He knew though that Maire Stafford was intending to encourage anybody who responded to claim that they were victims of a crime.
Blood out of a stone! Do you have evidence that Mike knew that there were no grounds for a criminal offence? He asked for people who felt they had been victimised by you to step forward, but beyond that you've not given any proof of a conspiracy or perversion of justice by anyone (and that email is evidence of neither).
ReplyDelete'That's not what you said before. Now you are claiming to have evidence that one person attempted to pervert the course of justice (though we have to take your word for that apparently). Before you said that it was a conspiracy and that Mike was involved.'
ReplyDeleteI am still claiming that. Here is what Mike Fortune-Wood said on his list a month ago:
'If anyone has had their personal details given out on Simon Webb's blog can
they please get in touch with Maire Stafford
mairestafford@gmail.com
This is urgent, if you want to do something about this today is the day.
Maire will explain to you what is being done.'
There is no mention of police action or that those who respond to this appeal will be asked to represent themselves as victims of a crime. Since Mike Fortune-Wood knew that this was the aim of the whole enterprise, I can only assume that he was party to the whole thing. Perhaps somebody could explain another construction that could be placed upon this. Mike Fortune-Wood was aware of what was being planned and offered to help. Maire Stafford was misleading everybody right, left and centre. After Nikki Harper made a statement to the police, they told her that they intended to take no further action. When I contacted them and virtually insisted upon their taking my name and address, they did so reluctantly. As far as they were concerned, the whole thing was a mare's nest.
Maire Stafford though, told people that if only enough people could be found to claim that I was in the habit of harrassing people on this blog, then the police would take action against me. This was a lie and is something cooked up by Maire Stafford and one or two other people as an act of sheer mischief. Did Mike Fortune-Wood know this? I cannot say for sure, but judging by his subsequent actions, it is very likely.
So no evidence of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Possibly evidence that one person attempted to pervert the course of justice, but we have to take you word on that. Whatever.
DeleteComplete and utter waste of police time.
DeleteThe lot of you should hang your heads in shame.
On the plus side, it proves without a shadow of doubt that you're nothing but a bunch of petty minded, vindictive pillocks.
Makes you wonder why the hell anyone would want to become involved in home education.
Just goes to show what a bunch of ****s home education gurus can be.
Delete'On the plus side, it proves without a shadow of doubt that you're nothing but a bunch of petty minded, vindictive pillocks.'
DeleteBecause no teacher has ever been accused of being petty minded or vindictive. ;-)
The antics of a few don't condemn thousands of others who are quietly helping their children achieve great educations.
By proportional representation...
DeleteHome educators sweep the board in the petty minded vindictive stakes..
You're clueless. Your aggressive and ridiculous comments make that clear, I'm afraid.
Delete'So you have no evidence that anyone attempted to pervert the course of justice and your suggestion here is libellous'
ReplyDeleteAnybody wishing to sue me for libel has of course a remedy in law. However, all the emails which have been exchanged would come to light and there would be some pretty searching questions asked; questions such as, 'What on earth was Mike Fortune-Wood doing when he tried to get people to make statements to the police about me? What was his connection with the case in Lincolnshire which triggered all this? What did Maire Stafford tell him? To what extent was the whole idea his, Maire Stafford's or Nikki Harper's?'
If anybody wishes to have a go at this, they are very welcome, but there will be witness summonses flying about all over the place in such a case! I already have plenty of evidence about what was going on and if an action is started I can certainly obtain anything else I might require by the usual court procedures.
Incidentally, does anybody find it odd that such a laid back and liberal fellow as Mike Fortune-Wood should be carrying on in this devious way? He has posted untruthful things about me in other places using the identity Maesk123, he has complained to google in an attempt to get this blog closed down and now he is trying to have me arrested. How well does this tie in wth his public persona?
And you expect us to take your word for all this given your track record? And you know you are free to lie as much as you like since few people can afford to take court action for libel.
Delete'And you expect us to take your word for all this given your track record?'
ReplyDeleteNot at all! Why not just ask Mike Fortune-Wood, Maire Stafford and Nikki Harper yourself, whether or not it is true that they hatched up a plan to have me arrested? They may be contacted at:
mairestafford@gmail.com
mike@home-education.org.uk
nikki@elysian.co.uk
If I am telling lies about this then they do not have to go to all the trouble and expense of suing me for libel; they could simply comment here and tell everybody what a terrible liar I am! In such a case, I shall be happy to furnish fuller and further particulars of what I allege.
This is like a chimp enclosure at the zoo..
ReplyDeleteThere they go flinging shit at each other, better duck quick, before it gets hurled in your direction.
As I recall...this is about as good as home ed gets.
Language!
DeleteA friend's son just got into Oxford with stunning A Level results yesterday, so no, it's not as good as HE gets. Many parents are doing a fabulous job of educating their children outside the school system. They don't have the time to comment here though.
However, if it makes you feel better about sending your own children to some dreadful school by such comments as those above then feel free.
'a friends son just got into Oxford'
DeleteSo what, not all parents are doing a fabulous job and it's not a manditory requirement of home education that your child achieves a place at some Oxbridge college.
Your crass post does nothing but perpetuate the home ed 'Oxford' myth, there are plenty of bright schooled young people being prevented from going to any university due to fees..
The odd thing is when you home educators make all those intelligent noises about conspiracy theories and elitism.
LOL! My son is going to university with his fees paid due to our financial circumstances, so don't be presumptious.
DeleteYou are so inconsistent. You've gone from 'flinging ****' is 'as good as HE gets' to 'it's not a manditory requirement of home education that your child achieves a place at some Oxbridge college.' Make your mind up.
PS It's 'mandatory'.
How come his fees get paid due to your financial circumstances?
DeleteThat makes you sound completely feckless..
There are decent hard working parents with bright, well balanced children who struggle to pay for a good redbrick these days.
To those who object to the waste of police time which this nonsense caused; I can only agree! Nikki Harper's statement to the police rambled on interminably and must have taken quite some time to set down in their data base. I only spoke briefly to the police in Lincolnshire, just long enough to give them my name and address if they wanted it. They did not, but added it to the record anyway.
ReplyDeleteUsing the police in this way, as a means to get back on people who have annoyed one on the internet, is of course unforgivable. They certainly have better things to do than listen to astrologers who insist upon telling them about their husband's connection with a spiritualist church! Their final advice to this unfortunate woman was that if reading this blog upset her, then she should avoid it. I am sure that we would all agree that this was sound counsel.
"How come his fees get paid due to your financial circumstances?
ReplyDeleteThat makes you sound completely feckless.."
I wish all you anonymouses would think before you write. You make home educators look like petty-minded idiots. Attacking each other for being poor? Come on.
Claire, I'm afraid that the person doing the attacking is not a home educator, rather someone who seems to have a grievance against home educators.
ReplyDeleteIt's because of aggression from this idvividual that some of us wish to remain anonymous.