Thursday, 18 April 2013

A 'spiteful, nasty, mean son of a bitch' writes…





I was accused yesterday, not for the first time, of misogyny and bullying. Both are pretty unpleasant things and so I thought I would take the time to look at the idea that I am a ‘vile, insecure  bully', as another anonymous person put it, and see if the evidence supports this thesis.

The first thing to bear in mind is that all of us who are, or have  been, home educators are adults. This means that we must expect to encounter a little rough and tumble, with other people challenging our views and failing to agree with us. This is the same whether we are supporters of home education or Manchester United; not everybody will share our  opinions. As long as disagreement is expressed politely and the person disputing with me does so openly, I can see no reason to object to anything anybody says about me. If I say or write something publicly, then of course I can expect others to tell me if they think that I am wrong or that I am behaving badly. This has frequently happened on this blog and elsewhere. I have never felt bullied when others tell me that I am mistaken, to give one example, in my opinion that compulsory registration and monitoring would be a good thing for home education in this country. If I say this, or write about it in the newspapers, then of course it is OK for people to argue with me. This leads to another point. It was suggested yesterday that because some of the views that I was writing about had been expressed four years ago, then it was not fair to mention them now. This seems to me absurd. I wrote newspaper articles four years ago and people are still quoting them and asking if I stand by what I said. I could say that I have changed my mind or that I still hold the same view. This hardly means that I am being bullied! 

Another point to bear in mind when considering whether I am bullying people, is that I do not pursue anybody or try to press my views upon others. I am expressing here a purely personal opinion and if people do not like what I say, then surely the remedy is to stop coming here to read it?  It is ridiculous to go out of your way to come and read views with which you disagree and then say that you are being bullied by what is being said. I might mention  that when some people went to the police and tried to claim that I was bullying and harassing them, the police took this very stance. They advised those complaining, that if they did not like what I was saying, then to give me and my blog a wide berth. I spoke to the unfortunate officer in Lincolnshire who had been handling the case and he was utterly perplexed at the idea of somebody visiting a site on the internet regularly and then claiming to the police that she was being harassed by the person running the site! Interesting to note, by the by, that when the subject of yesterday's post began to blog last year, the very first people to comment were  those who were involved in trying to have me arrested! There seems to be a small group who are determined to portray themselves as victims of my bullying. They all know each other and egg each other on to see who can feel the most victimised. These remarks are meant generally and are not specifically directed against Nikki Harper, Maire Stafford or anybody else.

The charge of misogyny is a more tricky one to tackle. It is true that the majority of those whose views I examine and criticise on this blog are women. That is because women are very greatly over-represented among home educators. Most of the groups are run by women; as are the forums and blogs. Home Education UK, run by Mike Fortune-Wood is an exception and I have never been shy of stating what I think about the fool who runs it! I think that the fact that women are the subject of remark more often than men on this blog is simply a statistical thing; there are more of them involved in the enterprise with which this blog deals. If I were blogging about, say, football or motor racing, then I suspect that the proportions would be reversed and most of those about whom I commented would be men. Of course, it might be that some of these women feel that I should adopt a gentler tone when talking of women than I would if I were writing about a man. I am not likely to be doing that. I do not subscribe to the Victorian view of women as the gentler sex, needing to be handled with greater sensitivity and delicacy  than men.

Incidentally, has anybody noticed two interesting things about those who are accusing me of being a misogynistic bully? The first is that there is a preference for gendered insults such as 'son of a bitch',  'knob' and reference being made to my balls. The second is that the person saying these things will not sign his or her name. Anonymous attacks of this sort really are the mark of the bully.

Tragically, I shall be withdrawing for a few days; due to urgent commitments. Normal service will be resumed next week and in the meantime, please feel free to talk among yourselves.

66 comments:

  1. Whilst i might not agree with everything you blog about i have no doubt that you speak the truth. I have seen first hand the level of destruction that has been caused in the home ed community. These immature statements from the accused and their minions only add to your argument so let them continue. They cannot argue with what's in black and whit, the truth laid bare for all to see must really hurt. The amount of nievity in these groups is truly shocking, the creation of a new group surely speaks for itself no?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Stop using big words you can't spell, anon. The creation of a new group is just the usual tit for tat, "We can't be in your group so we'll copy yours". You even stole the description, sad little critters you are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Stole"? What was stolen and from who? Wendy will probably need to serve papers ;)

      Delete
    2. Sad little critters? See Simon i told you they just can't stop themselves.
      Pathetic really

      Delete
    3. What bothers me most is the level these people will stoop to. Name calling is ridiculous. Many home educators remove their kids from school because of bullying and yet here you are picking on spelling mistakes and name calling all because you don't have a valid argument against what has been said. When someone presents FACTS you cannot argue with that.

      Delete
    4. Stole in the past tense of steal. To steal, one must take another person's possessions without authority or legal consent. As far as I'm aware "Home Education UK", "HEUK", "HED UK" are not tangible items so cannot be stolen. Maybe you mean they copied them? If there's no patent or trademarks in force, there is no justification in accusing people of stealing/copying/replicating these.

      A. Critter

      Delete
  3. " You even stole the description, sad little critters you are."

    Not sad at all. Very intelligent way to filter new people away from the influence of Cheryl Moy. It seems to be working already.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Adding people who have not asked to join is a great way of getting your numbers up. I wonder how many who don't hold a grudge against others will leave the new group once they realise the new group is a con

      Delete
    2. Why do you care and why would you think the new group is a con? Surely the fact that hundreds of people are flocking to the new group shows that people have had enough of this now.

      Delete
    3. They are not flocking to the new group. People are being added without their knowledge. I know I just left that appalling group when I saw who the admin were

      Delete
    4. Maybe you should just let people make their own decision based on all the available information. I don't know why it bothers you so much?

      Delete
    5. Not too intelligent if there was any intellect involved you could of come up with an original idea. So saying that you had to use a copy as a filter indicates you must think that people are either stupid or too complacent?

      Delete
    6. Let's be clear here. Whenever Cheryl starts a new group, she will add people on her FB friend's list without their consent... but of course this is ok.....

      In the space of 24 hours there are over 200 members... It has taken Cheryl well over a year to get her 1100... just shows how desperate people are to get away from her.

      Delete
    7. "Not too intelligent if there was any intellect involved you could of come up with an original idea. So saying that you had to use a copy as a filter indicates you must think that people are either stupid or too complacent?"

      I've read this six times, and I'm quite convinced I can't bring myself to the requisite level of cretinism to comprehend what you're trying to say.

      Delete
    8. "In the space of 24 hours there are over 200 members... It has taken Cheryl well over a year to get her 1100... just shows how desperate people are to get away from her."

      As there are many Home Education groups you will get people joining them for help and advice about Home Education no matter who is involved. So it doesn't really show anything of what you have concluded in your statement.

      Delete
    9. "I've read this six times, and I'm quite convinced I can't bring myself to the requisite level of cretinism to comprehend what you're trying to say."

      It would of taken anyone else just one time no doubt!
      But as for trying to raise yourself to a higher level of understanding at least you tried!

      Delete
    10. "It would of..."

      Would have, nimrod.

      Delete
    11. So I typed it wrong and you pointed that out for which purpose I am not sure of or care as I still stand by what I have said.



      Delete
    12. "Would have, nimrod"

      If only that were true! But resorting to name calling is just lowering yourself to childish behaviour. After all we are supposed to be adults here.

      Delete
    13. Are we? Does childish behaviour offend you?

      Delete
    14. "Are we? Does childish behaviour offend you?"
      I am not that easily offended, I am just giving you a heads up.

      Delete
  4. "I wonder how many who don't hold a grudge against others will leave the new group once they realise the new group is a con"

    How is it a con?

    ReplyDelete
  5. I have read your blog for a few months now. I take issue with certain things that you say, however I am provided with a forum in which to respond and to debate. My remarks are not censored and the questions I raise are answered in an appropriate manner.
    I appreciate your honesty even if I do not appreciate your views.

    I must say, that as someone who does not agree with LEA visits, I am certainly reconsidering my viewpoint after witnessing some of the childish, obscene and awful name calling that seems to be the default setting for some of the adults that choose to anonymously comment.

    As one of the admin on the group, I am pleased to inform you that our numbers are growing and the conversations are flowing. All opinions are respected and welcomed and we hope that individuals continue to join and contribute all their experiences, resources, thoughts and philosophies. This is how we grow and how we learn as a society and as individuals.

    I did suggest to other admins that we should reference the blurb about the group to Chez, but we felt this would cause her further embarrassment as it was so poorly written. It has now been re written.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Sam

      And to clarify, we do not and will not be poaching members. To consider our members are there because they have been poached is rather insulting to our members. We added our friends to the group, which we felt would find it of use and other people added their friends. We welcome you to the group and hope you can satisfy yourselves that it is an open group for home educators in the UK. Im sorry you feel intimidated by the group, this is sad to see what with yours having such a high member count. We have no intention of competing merely forfilling the request to have the needs met of the home educating community as a whole. All our welcome and we look forward to your contributions.

      Jenny Kay

      Delete
  6. I hear cheryl took her group by getting her friends to make her a moderator and then deleting the old moderators. If this is true, the success of the group is surely not down to her or current moderators, but infact the work of the older members that have now all left. Is this the case?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that is what happened.

      Delete
    2. The group was taken on by a number of other people (including Cheryl) when it was about to internally combust, as the admin were useless. It was also, at the time, an open group.

      One of the new admin (not Cheryl) closed it down, moving all the members to a new closed group, over the years, admin have left due to either not HEing anymore, leaving facebook, one did remove herself (allegedly something to do with Cheryl) and another removed herself when her relationship with Cheryl broke down. 2 of those 4 are still very active members of the group.

      There are always at least 3 admin from what I have seen.

      So no, that is not what happened. Cheryl has never removed an admin member. The group's success is down to Cheryl and the other admin that saved the group and moved it to a closed group.

      Delete
  7. You all must be incensed b the new group. Only Chez should be able to add people and poach members from other groups. How dare anyone copy her. (Not that this is happening BTW)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. HAHA! so the new group didn't copy the other group introduction word for word?

      Delete
  8. It just gets clearer that the old group cares about "getting people" and looking big more than it does about being a community.

    There's no such thing as "poaching members" unless there's an ulterior motive to having a wide audience rather than just building communities.

    For example, you might get upset about people joining another community if you planned to monetise your userbase somehow...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Members have been complaining how they were added to the new group without permission. How is that not 'poaching'?

      Delete
    2. Cheryl would actively "poach" and even laugh about it with friends in other groups. What's good for the goose and all that....


      (Not that I'm saying admin of the new group *are* poaching, just pointing out the hypocrisies that are rife here...)

      Delete
  9. Using misogyny as a shield is a disgrace. It suppresses honest dialogue and exploits the suffering of oppressed women for the sake of being an asshole with the expectation of avoiding criticism.

    Females are capable of misogyny, and Chez seeps with it. She embodies the patriarchy, and merely seeks to oppress those who she perceives as weaker than her. It's a very Thatcherite approach to feminism; climb to the top to become the oppressor.

    ReplyDelete
  10. LOL, they're having a row about copyright law!

    It doesn't protect short or generic phrases such as an introduction to a facebook group.

    Nor is their name a trademark unless they are a company/business!

    How are these people home-ed'ing?

    I bet they couldn't teach a dog to bark.

    ReplyDelete
  11. For what it's worth - I'm now on the 'hit list' too. I want to consult with the new faces in the LA and had a "little" run in with Cheryl only yesterday - needless to say all posts on DHE are now being moderated / approved prior to being made public (MODERATED BY CHERYL ??) - open, honest, helpful - I think not. ! How many of these groups are open honest and helpful - none that I have found and most seem to have the links to the same old set of names described here - it's a few who have been ruining things for the rest of us! Which is why I've started a FB group myself.
    I think many are frightened to peep from behind the curtains (or the bullet proof glass) and I think that is a terrible shame. Cheryl publishes what Cheryl wants - nothing else matters - not even other home edders opinions.
    My name is Nicky White and I'm not afraid to say it. I will run a FB page (Doncaster Home Ed or if you can't find it email wtsaccounts@btinternet.com and I will send you a link - FB group will welcome open honest discussion centered around a positive viewpoint. I'm trying to work with the LA not runing around like a headless chicken trying to find faults which have happened in the past - Lets look to the future - for Doncaster, for our children - I will also respect anyone who wants to remain anonymous without pretending I'm speaking for them. I will stand up for the rights of all home edders who ARE doing the right thing but I will not be threatened, bullied or silenced by anyone and would not use those tactics to gain favour.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Out of interest would people doing the right thing include not wanting to have anything to do with the LA or do you have other ideas what the right thing is? It's a genuine question

      Delete
    2. The easiest approach I can think of after 30 years of watching home education trends and tensions is to take the view that one should support families in fulfilling their lawful responsibilities in a manner that they are comfortable with themselves and that suits the particular child.

      Each family is entitled to fair and lawful treatment and can make their own choices and this should be supported.

      Whether you are prefer a school style at home, autonomous/free range, a mixture of styles or finding your own early way; whether you are unknown, accept or welcome your local council worker into your home or to speak to your children, prefer to send in written reports or take the view that the council should not enquire without better cause, it is important that all families who are serving the needs of their children in fulfilling their lawful duties and natural responsibilities should be supported.

      How they do these things is really their own business and they should be at liberty.

      Discussing the pros and cons of different approaches and attitudes is a good thing for the purpose of gaining good information and challenging or testing your own views. Knowing what happened in the past is akin, in my opinion, to knowing history in the hope of not being doomed to repeat some of it through ignorance and arming yourself, therefore, against possible pit falls.

      Barbara Stark.

      Delete
    3. A refreshingly intelligent and humane comment, Barbara!

      Delete
    4. Agree 100% Barbara.

      Delete
    5. +1 Barbara's commment!

      Delete
    6. Nikki Wall. Why do you think it's for you to assume that you know what's best for the home educators in your area or any other county for that matter? Doncaster, like another county, are well aware that they are breaking the law when it comes to their policies. Why do you think that you working with them will change that? Do you have the permission of other Doncaster home educators to work with their LA? I doubt it. You would have to be aware of the wishes of every HEr in Doncaster to do that and as many are not known to their LA, that indicates that you are taking it upon yourself to introduce new policies which may appear to you to be for the benefit of the 'greater good', but many are not happy with what you are doing. Just wondered, what qualifies you to do this? I deal with my LA in respect of home educating my grandson. I know the law and ensure that my LA is aware of this, but I would not be so arrogant as to take it upon myself to represent any other home educator in my county. If you have problems with your LA in Doncaster, then you deal with them on a one to one basis in respect of your own family, and not take it upon yourself to act as an ambassador for everyone else.

      Delete
    7. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    8. Teachernan - you're accusing the wrong person :( please read back . I am also in Doncaster but I don't represent anyone but myself.

      Delete
    9. My apologies, Nikki Wall. My post was aimed at Nicky White.

      Delete
  12. Totally agree Barbara

    ReplyDelete
  13. I have one question, why do some people think this Cheryl has the influence you think she has?

    I have been part of the HE network for some years, I am in many groups, from what I can tell, Cheryl is in 4 HE groups, she is admin on all 4, but doesn't use her admin on 3, other people do it.

    Has anyone remembered that she spent many days setting up groups for every area? and once they had members she passed them to those members and left, how is this being the controlling person a few are adamant to make her out to be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How would you know that?

      And in any case, you're going to LOVE the latest news.

      Delete
    2. Setting up groups for every area? What kind of groups? In person groups? Yahoo groups? Having been involved in the establishment of both, I know how much work that involves. Why would she double up on what already exists?

      I'm not understanding.

      A Minion

      Delete
    3. From what I understand it was a fb group for each area, there were a few of us that noticed people were asking if anyone knew of a fb group for their area and there were many areas that didn't have one and many were saying how they'd like a group but wouldn't know where to start making one, so cheryl created a fb group for each area, when someone on the national groups asked, they could then be pointed towards one of the local groups. Once each group had a few members cheryl left the group, leaving it to the locals, most of these groups are still running without any input from cheryl. Yes I believe some areas ended up with duplicates and were close down as soon as that became apparent.

      Delete
    4. Cheryl handed over the groups *because* people were annoyed that she could boot those she did not like out of them at will. Many people also didn't understand how she could admin a local group to them, that was not local to her. Which is why she handed the admins over.

      As for not actively adminning other groups, she might not be in public, but she will be behind the scenes... don't take everything at face value.

      Delete
    5. Cheryl did indeed set up lots of local groups. I was admin with her on mine. After she left, I discovered that she had added two fake profiles to the group, presumably so that she would still be able to see what was going on in there after she had 'left'. She is a complete control freak.

      Delete
    6. Of course they must have been Cheryl's fake profiles they couldn't possibly have been genuine or someone else's fake profile. Out of how ever many people use fb Cheryl is the only person to ever have set up a fake profile. Do any of you actually think before posting

      Delete
    7. They were not local home edders, they were added by Cheryl, they had no connections to any other home edders. So what were they doing there?

      Delete
    8. There are people who don't speak in my local group they just like to lurk & keep up with what's going on because they don't like the yahoo group. There are people who lived in my area but moved away but didn't remove themselves maybe because they still have connections to the area so they can keep up with what's going on for when they visit the area. I would rather trust they are genuine people & make they feel welcome in the community instead of being paranoid & kick them out. Even if it is a fake profile that Cheryl has made to keep an eye on the group what do you have to hide? Do you spend all your time talking about her instead of things to do
      With home edding & what's going on in the area? You could risk alienating a home elder just because your paranoid

      Delete
    9. "Even if it is a fake profile that Cheryl has made to keep an eye on the group what do you have to hide?"

      As a home edder do you not see the irony of that statement?

      Delete
  14. As for how do I know this? I am a true friend, if I want to know something I ask cheryl, i am interested in her and we talk, you know the kind of mature relationship many people find alien!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes of course. Because Cheryl is VERY capable of having mature, grown up conversations with people without resorting to swearing, name calling or making accusatory remarks (that often turn out to be false)........

      Delete
    2. Your grammatical errors are also much like Chez's.

      Delete
    3. If you want to know something, you ask Cheryl?

      I didn't realise she was that well-learned.

      Delete
    4. "I didn't realise she was that well-learned."

      That is your problem no-one else's .

      Delete
    5. So Chez is omniscient?

      Delete
    6. Gorden Bennett! Every time I look back at this blog I see Cheryl disguised as a different 'friend' defending her. It is so obviously you Cheryl and was amusing at first but now it is getting boring.

      Delete
    7. "Gorden Bennett! Every time I look back at this blog I see Cheryl disguised as a different 'friend' defending her.It is so obviously you Cheryl and was amusing at first but now it is getting boring."

      She does have friends here defending her. I am one of them. As you see her in everything posted here that says more about you than anything else could!

      It is so obviously you Cheryl and was amusing at first but now it is getting boring."

      Delete
    8. Hello Cheryl.

      Delete

  15. So Chez is omniscient?

    No, just as you aren't Omniscient either!
    Which you show in such an inefficient question.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Simon, i apologise unreservedly for the profanities I posted on your blog.

    ReplyDelete