Wednesday, 4 December 2013

The ‘Exiled Educator’; an update




Readers will perhaps recall that there was a little unpleasantness here a couple of weeks ago, following  a casual remark which I made in answer to a comment by Gill Kilner. I said:

I have just remembered, weren't you one of that gang who helped somebody slip out of the country and relocate to Ireland, in order to avoid answering all those awkward questions from social services about leaving her kids alone in the house?


Cue predictable outrage, in the course of which I was accused of everything  from criminal harassment and libel to suffering from a cogitative dissonance! How dare I say that she left her children alone in the house! I knew nothing about it and was smearing an innocent woman! There was renewed hostility when I elaborated by explaining that the  woman’s seventeen year-old son had been left in charge of his younger siblings and that this came to the attention of social services, because he was not a fit person to be left looking after young children. 

This sort of thing is a bit of a distraction from the real business of this blog, but now that the dust has settled a little, I thought that I would set out the facts of the case and allow readers to decide for themselves if I was right.

The mother in question  went off for the evening, leaving her teenage son to take care of the younger children.  While he was babysitting  a prank call was made  to the police from the house. They duly attended the property, whereupon the boy refused to let them in. They then forced entry to the home. At this point, perhaps we could just consider what I said; that the mother left her children alone in the house. Anybody think that this is the sort of thing that having a responsible adult in the house would have prevented from happening?

Having gained entry to the home, the police discovered that not only was there not a responsible adult looking after the children, conditions in the place left somewhat to be desired. There was, for example, animal shit all over the floor. As a result of this, they did the sensible thing and notified social services. The mother had had trouble before with both the police and social services. She was pregnant at the time and was in the habit of smoking cannabis and then more or less boasting about it. There were rumours that the kids might be about to be taken into care and so she left the country for Ireland, where she started a blog briefly, called,  The Exiled Educator. This may be found here:

http://the-exiled-educator.blogspot.co.uk/

  She had the baby, returned to this country and now lives in the north of England,  not far from  Nottingham.

I am hoping that some of those who were so unpleasant to me about what I said will now take the opportunity to apologise; beginning with Gill Kilner. I don’t really expect this to happen, but readers might like to look back at the things people said here, when they evidently knew all about this and wanted to pretend that I was making up lies about this case. What a bunch!

127 comments:

  1. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong on so many counts, you are a fool and would do well to take your nose out of other people's business

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wouldn't normally comment here Simon but you have made such a gross error in the above I feel I have to. I suggest it would be prudent for you to remove this post and ask your source double check their "facts" before republishing.

    Lisa Amphlett

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is this aggressive and erroneous repeated speculation counted as libel and harassment? It is quite malicious and sickening. I don't see how being an irritable middle aged man who can't abide certain lifestyles/views justifies this sort of persistent and low attack on a real family just to look "right" in a blog disagreement.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I wasn't outraged. I wasn't even thinking of the 17 year old as a child, as I clearly said in our conversation, so we were talking at cross purposes. So what could I possibly have said or done to apologise for?

    As to what you've said today about my friend, I recognise some of the story and not other parts. But neither of us were there, so I really cannot see the point splitting hairs over it.

    I am perplexed as to your motive in this. Everyone named on the appeal letter supported a friend in need and therefore was stupid? I think that was the word you used last time.

    I've got no interest in trying to show that you're stupid. I didn't think you were lying, merely mistaken. I still think you're mistaken about some elements of this story, but I'm not going into which parts of it and why because a) it's over and done with, and b) apart from the wording of the public appeal, the details are private.

    We told what we knew of the case. People who wanted to contribute, contributed. People who didn't, didn't. Nobody was tricked or coerced. Nobody has done anything wrong. There is no trouble to make about this.

    I cannot think why you keep bringing it up, when I only came here to discuss Lisa's letter to the APPG.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Correction: I only came here to discuss your questions to Graham Stuart, as someone's just reminded me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'I am perplexed as to your motive in this.'

      That's no mystery! When I mentioned that your friend had got herself into a pickle by leaving her children alone in the house, you responded by saying:

      'And my friend did NOT leave her children alone in the house! She made good provision for their care, always has and always would.

      I think it's your propensity to make such unfounded and damaging assumptions about people that probably triggers the use of adjectives like 'demonic' about your writing. '


      Perhaps if you were now to admit that these were not unfounded and damaging assumptions at all, but no more than the literal truth, it would help? I made a simple and truthful statement and you set out to try and represent it as being a lie. The usual crowd joined in and some readers might have been left with the impression that I had made it all up. I am now setting the record straight, so that people will understand that I was just relating the events, as told by the mother herself. You don't presumably remember all the facebook exchanges about this? Would it help if I posted some of them here? However, this might put Lisa Amphlett in a bad light too, because I observe above that she too is now trying to pretend that none of this is true.

      Most of us are used to these tactics by this particular group of home educators, but it does no harm at all to draw attention to it from time to time. It helps others to decide how much weight to attach to their next claim.

      Delete
    2. OK. When you said social services came round because she left her children in the house on their own, this was incorrect and I said so. She left them with the 17 year old, and he was a responsible person to leave them with. As far as I know this was never in question.

      As to whether she did literally leave her children in the house alone, I would still disagree ;) There being three of them, they were not alone! They were all undoubtedly her offspring.

      You left the last part of my 23rd November comment out:

      "I think it's your propensity to make such unfounded and damaging assumptions about people that probably triggers the use of adjectives like 'demonic' about your writing.

      Autonomous educators being a case in point, since I've now been reminded to reread your pieces in the TES."

      It was those articles to which I was referring when I described your writing as demonic.





      Delete
    3. And the article in and Independent, sorry. I meant to include the link to that.

      Delete
    4. - If you can make sense of those mangled words! LOL

      Delete
    5. 'It was those articles to which I was referring when I described your writing as demonic. '

      Yes, there's the sort of word which I seldom encounter in criticism of my more academic writing, Gill! There's always a problem when one starts describing somebody's work in this way. At the very least, it hardly sets the stage for cordial relations!

      Delete
    6. Having read those two articles, I wasn't particularly in the mood for cordial relations with you. It didn't seem like you were either. If only I'd known that you really just wanted to be friends, it could all have been so different between us!

      Rest assured, you insulted my method of home education far more than I insulted your writing about it.

      Delete
  6. oh, I see you have edited some of your accusations and speculation since I first read this a short while ago.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'oh, I see you have edited some of your accusations and speculation since I first read this a short while ago.'

      Yes, I have tidied it up and added a link to the blog.

      'your accusations '

      I can't see any accusation there. I said that the mother left her elder son looking after the younger children, but that's not an accusation; it's what she herself says in the blog. Unless you mean about her previous encounters with the authorities? I am happy to provide chapter and verse about those, if you are suggesting that I am making that up.

      Delete
    2. you edited out your accusation about the boy. Therefore, no one can now see it.
      What is the real business of this blog?
      I am guessing it is not peace on earth and goodwill to mankind?

      Delete
  7. "However, this might put Lisa Amphlett in a bad light too, because I observe above that she too is now trying to pretend that none of this is true."

    How?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh yes removed his libel about the 17 year old making the prank call, a bit like Badman's third call for evidence, a desire to harm makes good research or leaving alone a no go.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And there for being unfit to be left in charge of the children, seems like a serious accusation to me.

      Delete
  9. Where did you get the details from Simon?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "Having gained entry to the home, the police discovered that not only was there not a responsible adult looking after the children, conditions in the place left somewhat to be desired. There was, for example, animal shit all over the floor" False accusations and lies

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'There was, for example, animal shit all over the floor" False accusations and lies'

      Indeed not! The mother claimed that the animal had shit on the floor in fear when the police forced their way in. That there was animal shit on the floor was never disputed by either the mother or anybody else. The question was, how long had it been there and was shit on the floor a common occurrence. That there was shit on the floor was never in doubt.

      Delete
    2. That does not make it all over the floor nor does it make it a sign of neglect. This is a most vindictive post.

      Delete
    3. Shit *on* the floor is an order of magnitude less than shit *all over* the floor.

      Delete
    4. 'That does not make it all over the floor nor does it make it a sign of neglect. '

      The amount of shit and how often it was seen on the floor was the matter of some debate. It was not the only thing that made the police uneasy and caused them to contact social services. You appear to be another one who has forgotten all the facebook exchanges which took place about this at the time!

      Delete
    5. One thing is absolutely sure, it is none of your business so I recommend you wipe it off your nose.

      Delete
    6. 'One thing is absolutely sure, it is none of your business so I recommend you wipe it off your nose.'

      This is frankly puzzling! People like Gill Kilner and Lisa Amphlett went out of their way last year to publicise this family and talk of their problems. The mother herself has told everybody of her life and even started a blog, in which she talks about leaving her seventeen year-old son in charge of the younger children. When did this suddenly become a private matter that nobody else is supposed to discuss?

      Delete
    7. Not true, nobody went out of their way, just enough was said to elicit support from those who wanted to support.

      You are disingenuous. It is muck raking, the tabloids like this sort of stuff, but it is not respectable fodder for debate. Try discussing the issues if you must but your are just gossiping, and in the most offensive way.

      Delete
    8. 'Shit *on* the floor is an order of magnitude less than shit *all over* the floor.'

      As I say this was a matter of some debate! The age of the animal and its nervousness were both brought into the question and there are two different versions of the amount of shit involved. If you actually tread in the stuff when entering a house, perhaps you are more inclined to describe it as being 'all over the floor'.

      Delete
    9. You may even have put it all over the floor yourself, like you are putting it all over your blog.

      Delete
  11. Simon, unless you can demonstrate to me how I am "trying to pretend that none of this is true" I would like you to remove your comment please. If you want to discuss this further I am happy to do so via email -- lisa dot amphlett at gmail dot com, on the telephone, or face to face.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'Simon, unless you can demonstrate to me how I am "trying to pretend that none of this is true" I would like you to remove your comment please.'

      That was certainly the construction which I put upon your words, when you said:

      'I wouldn't normally comment here Simon but you have made such a gross error in the above I feel I have to. I suggest it would be prudent for you to remove this post and ask your source double check their "facts" before republishing.'

      As for speaking on the telephone, I hardly think that that is a brilliant idea! The last time I got involved in such an exchange was with Tania Berlow and that didn't end well...

      Delete
    2. "That was certainly the construction which I put upon your words, when you said:

      'I wouldn't normally comment here Simon but you have made such a gross error in the above I feel I have to. I suggest it would be prudent for you to remove this post and ask your source double check their "facts" before republishing.' "

      You have amended at least one gross error in your original post after I made the comment. It would aid the integrity of your writing, not to mention the lucidity of the comments, if you reflected this.

      If you need more help understanding this, my offer of an email, telephone or face to face conversation stands. How can honest communication be anything less than a good idea?



      Delete
  12. I'm quite interested in why you have slanted this the way you have Simon. A reasonable person might questioned the illegal actions of the police in forcing entry without a warrant, terrorising both children and pets in the process, and in interviewing three under eighteens without their parent or a lawyer present. I can only assume that your "source" has a vested interest in discrediting the people who signed the appeal and is using you to that end. The timing is intriguing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'I'm quite interested in why you have slanted this the way you have Simon.'

      I have quoted from the accounts of those involved, including the mother herself. In what way would you say that I have slanted it?

      Delete
    2. God I hope we don't move to a situation where the police can't talk to under 18s without a lawyer present. ...

      Delete
  13. For those who are suggesting that this is none of my business, might I just point out, once again, that it was Gill Kilner and Lisa Amphlett, among others, who first publicised this matter. The mother herself has blogged about it. She has said a good deal about this business on the internet. It is absurd now to pretend that I am intruding into a private matter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The mother has not been silenced by any court, she seeks quite legitimately, support from her friends and peers. She is not talking to you, you are spying and eavesdropping.

      Quite frankly you come across as a stalker and perverted, and this is cyberbullying.

      Delete
    2. 'you are spying and eavesdropping.

      Quite frankly you come across as a stalker and perverted, and this is cyberbullying.'

      You seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, that when people come onto this blog and comment, or indeed say things about it elsewhere; then I am a victim of stalking and cyberbullying. Is that right? because I must admit, I always thought that when people started a public blog, it was because they wanted other people to read it and then comment about it. By your definition, then I suppose that because the mother about whom we have been talking has read this blog and said things about it on her own blog; that makes her a perverted stalker. Is that really what you think? Do think a little more before you post comments here.

      Delete
    3. No you do not have your information from her blog, it is mined from facebook groups you are not a visible member of and goodness knows where else.

      Delete
    4. 'No you do not have your information from her blog, '

      Well, I'm afraid that she actually blogged about leaving her seventeen year-old son in the house with the younger children and the trouble which resulted. I gave a link to this blog in the original post.

      Delete
  14. Once again, we see the extraordinary and utterly bizarre worldview of some home educators. One person publishes a blog and another looks at it and comments upon it. Only in Home Education Land would that be seen as stalking and cyber-bullying. Perhaps I am, after all, a victim of harassment! But no, when Maire Stafford and Mike Fortune-Wood tried that stunt, I seem to recall that it didn't come off!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No Simon, it is mining the lives of women and children that makes you a stalker, something you have admitted yourself although you took it down.

      Delete
    2. And then publishing them here with malicious embellishment, lies and worst possible interpretations.

      Delete
  15. "I have quoted from the accounts of those involved, including the mother herself. In what way would you say that I have slanted it?"

    Are you serious? Whom do you imagine was involved apart from the mother? If you are not quoting her words then you are repeating hearsay.

    You said
    “the woman’s seventeen year-old son had been left in charge of his younger siblings and that this came to the attention of social services, because he was not a fit person to be left looking after young children. “

    This was completely untrue. The matter came to the attention of social services because of the unfortunate combination of a prank call, a terrified pet and the illegal and disproportionate actions of the police – which you conveniently overlook.

    You said
    Anybody think that this is the sort of thing that having a responsible adult in the house would have prevented from happening?

    That's fairly typical of a white, middle-aged, middle-class, male to be honest. I'm fairly certain a black single mother on a housing estate would be less confident of her ability to handle the police in such a situation.

    You said
    “There was, for example, animal shit all over the floor.”

    This was not true and was a deliberate misrepresentation of what the mother explained had happened when her elderly pet was traumatised by the illegal police action.

    You said
    "Most of us are used to these tactics by this particular group of home educators, but it does no harm at all to draw attention to it from time to time. It helps others to decide how much weight to attach to their next claim."

    So thanks for confirming this is about discrediting a certain group. Nothing whatsoever to do with the APPG of course about which this group are inconveniently asking awkward questions. Still it does narrow down the likely sources.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ou said
      “the woman’s seventeen year-old son had been left in charge of his younger siblings and that this came to the attention of social services, because he was not a fit person to be left looking after young children. “

      This was completely untrue. The matter came to the attention of social services because of the unfortunate combination of a prank call, a terrified pet and the illegal and disproportionate actions of the police – which you conveniently overlook.'

      No, I think you will find that I am right about this. This boy was not a suitable person to be left in charge of those youngsters and that is why the police notified social services.

      'You said
      Anybody think that this is the sort of thing that having a responsible adult in the house would have prevented from happening?

      That's fairly typical of a white, middle-aged, middle-class, male to be honest. I'm fairly certain a black single mother on a housing estate would be less confident of her ability to handle the police in such a situation.'

      We both know that she's not black, right?

      'You said
      “There was, for example, animal shit all over the floor.”

      This was not true and was a deliberate misrepresentation of what the mother explained had happened when her elderly pet was traumatised by the illegal police action.'

      This is debatable. The mother says one thing and others something else.


      Delete
  16. Unless we have the details of the prank call we can not say if the police actions were illegal or disproportionate

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is not up to you to say, why do you set your self up as judge and jury, what on earth has it got to do with you. I find this prurient in the extreme.

      Delete
    2. Is this reply aimed at me?

      Delete
    3. You asked how you could know, I wonder what business it is of yours?

      Delete
    4. Try reading my comment again and ask an adult to help if you're still having trouble.

      Delete
    5. Ok I see that you are not passing judgement except on the person themselves and everyone who knows them. Cool then, cue the snide dismissive remark.

      Delete
    6. I'm not passing judgement I'm stating a fact. If you do not know the details of the call you cannot judge how proportionate the police response was. Someone said the action was illegal and disproportionate and knowing the call details would allow people to decide.

      Delete
    7. But why say it, the people saying it know, you don't, it should not be the subject of conversation. This is post cyberbullying.

      Delete
    8. Oh grow up. Of course it isn't.

      Delete
  17. 'Nothing whatsoever to do with the APPG of course about which this group are inconveniently asking awkward questions. Still it does narrow down the likely sources.'

    Do I get a prize for spotting the emergence of a conspiracy theory? Damn, I knew that I was somebody's cat's paw!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You have to admit that the timing of this post is a little bizarre, Simon. What purpose does it serve, other than to discredit those involved with the questioning?

      What did you think would happen? Did you think that a little smear campaign would render their concerns moot?

      Folly.

      Delete
    2. 'You have to admit that the timing of this post is a little bizarre, Simon. What purpose does it serve, other than to discredit those involved with the questioning?

      What did you think would happen? Did you think that a little smear campaign would render their concerns moot?

      Folly.'

      Ah, I think that I see now. You mean that because Graham Stuart gave Lisa Amphlett the bum's rush when she tried to ask him a lot of questions, I have been recruited to smear her? I'm almost certain that I would remember if an MP asked me to smear somebody, but I suppose that it might have happened.

      Delete
    3. Goodness, Simon, your powers of deduction are somewhat lacking of late; how quaint that your ego would lead you to such a conclusion.

      I do not for one minute believe that anyone worth noting would waste their time recruiting someone who, at best, has the literary range of an agony aunt.

      You're the Perez Hilton of the home-ed world.

      Delete
    4. 'Goodness, Simon, your powers of deduction are somewhat lacking of late; how quaint that your ego would lead you to such a conclusion.'

      Yes, it's always a problem when people don'tr say what they mean. Perhaps you could tell me then why the timing of the post was bizarre and what the smear campaign is supposed to be about?

      Delete
  18. "No, I think you will find that I am right about this. This boy was not a suitable person to be left in charge of those youngsters and that is why the police notified social services. "
    Nope you are wrong about that,

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Damn, I knew that I was somebody's cat's paw!"
    Freudian slip?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "The mother says one thing and others something else."

    You're unbelievable frankly. Were these "others" there?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. '"The mother says one thing and others something else."

      You're unbelievable frankly. Were these "others" there?


      Yes, they trod in it upon entering the premises...

      Delete
    2. Unlike you spreading it with glee to hurt and harm.

      Delete
  21. "We both know that she's not black, right?"

    Irrelevant. Your confidence that the presence of an adult would have averted the situation is based on your experience of the police as a white, middle class middle aged male. Members of other demographics would likely not have the same outcome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. '"We both know that she's not black, right?"

      Irrelevant. Your confidence that the presence of an adult would have averted the situation is based on your experience of the police as a white, middle class middle aged male. Members of other demographics would likely not have the same outcome.'

      Not sure what the police have to do with this. I was talking about the wisdom of leaving a teenage boy in charge of younger siblings in this way.

      Delete
    2. A boy who could easily be a father himself, don't be ridiculous!

      Delete
  22. So you would have us believe that you are getting your information direct from the police?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ones he is so frightened of that virulent hatred is the result of anyone mentioning them with regard to his disgusting activities.

      Delete
    2. 'The ones he is so frightened of that virulent hatred is the result of anyone mentioning them with regard to his disgusting activities.'

      I would hardly say that I have a, 'virulent hatred' for Maire Stafford'! More a feeling of resigned irritation.

      Delete
    3. You are kidding only yourself, why go to so much trouble to mine someones facebook wall and their life because of resigned irritation. Seriously you need more balance in your life.

      Delete
    4. 'You are kidding only yourself, why go to so much trouble to mine someones facebook wall and their life because of resigned irritation. Seriously you need more balance in your life.'

      Ah, you mean the time, a few months ago, when Maire Stafford and her friends were discussing my mustache? I didn't feel virulent hatred about this, and since it was on the public section, I can't see why I shouldn't have read it. I am generally interested to read what people have to say about me.

      Delete
    5. Someone had to be looking, mining someones life, cyber stalking. Facebook is always altering privacy but mostly no one is watching. Strange how you were there at the perfect time, you or someone even worse than you.

      Delete
    6. ' Strange how you were there at the perfect time,'

      You have to bear in mind that we are talking here about a person who was involved in trying to have me arrested! It is only natural that I keep a friendly eye on her, just in case she starts thinking about doing the same thing again.

      Delete
    7. So a little more serious than irritation in most peoples book. Now what do they call it, oh yes cyber stalking.

      Delete
    8. 'Now what do they call it, oh yes cyber stalking.'

      As I understand it, you mean that looking at somebody's facebook page constitutes cyber-stalking? That's certainly one definition of the expression!

      Delete
    9. Looking at the precise time a page is open when it is usually closed means you must have been hanging around. There is no point in this Simon, it is obvious and you have admitted to behaviour that can only be called cyber-stalking, you have taken many posts down but enough remain to support it.

      Delete
  23. Come on Simon do elaborate - are you saying that the Police are supplying your information or are you just making things up to cause trouble and inflate your sense of self-importance?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Can we have the officer's name please?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Why would you publish something so horrible at holiday time, or any time for that matter. You are a nasty piece of work.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Simon either you lied when you said that you had inforation directly from someone who was there or someone inside the police has been illegally passing you their version of events. Which is it? If the latter then please supply the officer's name. I'm sure you wouldnt wish to condone police corruption after all.
    I am sending the link to this blog to the police force involved for comment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great. Now more authorities will think home educators are idiots than is already the case.

      Delete
    2. 'Great. Now more authorities will think home educators are idiots than is already the case.'

      You speak truly, Anonymous! When Mike Fortune-Wood and Marie Stafford were trying to have me arrested, the police officer to whom I spoke in Lincolnshire was utterly baffled by the whole episode. He got me to give him a quick run-down on the home education scene and ended by asking if I wanted to pursue a case against Nikki Harper! He also expressed his feelings, to the effect that he wasn't at all surprised that local authorities were uneasy about these people, if they were like the ones with whom he had been dealing! I have an idea that the police force which has been sent a link to this blog will come to a similar conclusion.

      Delete
  27. 'I am sending the link to this blog to the police force involved for comment.'

    Gosh, I hope that they're not to busy today with other stuff, you know, like catching murderers and bank robbers, to pay attention to this! Remind me some time to tell readers what the officer in Lincolnshire, the one that Nikki Harper and Marie Stafford were pestering, had to say about home educators and their time wasting activities...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lol Simon you are the master of time wasting activity laced with bile. No amount of words will change the disgusting nature of this post and your comments.

      Delete
  28. I'm not trying to have you arrested - merely expose police corruption if there is any as any upstanding citizen would do. And if they say they haven't been talking to you illegally then we;ll know you are a liar. Result either way :)

    ReplyDelete
  29. Old Webb says "They duly attended the property, whereupon the boy refused to let them in. They then forced entry to the home.

    The police must have a warrant to enter a house it is against the law for the police to force there way into a house and the lad age 17 could file a complaint about this matter what type of force was used?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Incorrect. There are several reasons the police can enter your property without a warrant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. your wrong the police must have a warrant to enter your house mind you there not need one with you as you just let them in as you be to scared to say no.The police are not allowed to go around breaking down people door the police have to follow the law like every one else.The police must uphold the law at all times

      Delete
    2. Just do some research on the subject and stop posting knee jerk comments.

      Delete
    3. why don't you do that to

      Delete
    4. It's on the citizens advice website. Not difficult.

      Delete
  31. But none of them applied here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So you say. If you don't know the call details it's impossible to say.

      Delete
    2. why do you always agree with old Webb?

      Delete
    3. He doesn't. Keep up.

      Delete
  32. One of the questions that should now be asked is, do any of the people who donated to the fund now regret it? I donated, I do not regret it. Nothing I have read since has made me change my mind about the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not for one moment.

      Delete
  33. I completely stand by the lady in question and am completely happy to have supported her. Simon and his accomplices have published malicious lies and slander about someone who has done nothing to harm them in order to get at people asking difficult questions. It's low behaviour even by Webb's standards (such as they are)

    ReplyDelete
  34. I do know the call details and also the law, unlike yourself cheshire cat. There were no grounds for forced entry whatsoever so please stop trying to hint that you know more than the rest of us. It's just ridiculous. This whole vendetta is ridiculous and sick.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have never hinted that I know anything about the call. I said that you could not decide if the police action was proportionate if you do not the call details. Williams said theppolice cannot enter your home without a warrant. He is wrong and I corrected him.

      Delete
    2. your wrong the police can not force there way into your house unless there have a warrant.The police must uphold the law

      Delete
    3. "Powers of entry

      When can the police enter and search

      Police can only enter premises without a warrant if a serious or dangerous incident has taken place.

      Situations in which the police can enter premises without a warrant include when they want to:

      -deal with a breach of the peace or prevent it
      -enforce an arrest warrant
      -arrest a person in connection with certain offences
      -recapture someone who has escaped from custody
      -save life or prevent serious damage to property."

      So 'following a prank call'- amazingly, not listed!

      Source: http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system_e/law_police_e/police_powers.htm#Powersofentry

      Delete
    4. Prank calls might constitute a breach of the peace.

      Delete
    5. Fed up of repeating myself. Unless we know what the call entailed we cannot say if the police action was proportionate.

      Delete
  35. Replies
    1. Yes... Williams. I appreciate that many people on here dont welcome my comments but as fair minded home educators who value the truth can someone confirm that the police can enter your home without a warrant?

      Delete
  36. I also know that you are under no obligation to let the police into your home if they have no warrant at all, or refuse to produce one.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Cheshire Cat you not said who funds LA,s? is it done by magic?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Cheshire cat the only person on here who has used that name is you.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Are you saying you can't recognise Williams writing style ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. we can recognize your boring writing cat which always agree with Webb and LA,s who funds LA,s?

      Delete
  40. None of the grounds the police have for entry sans warrant apply in this case and no amount of twisted imagination can make them apply. Who or what is Williams and why, Simon, are you now posting as Cheshire cat?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stop wriggling and answer the question.

      Delete
    2. 'Who or what is Williams and why, Simon, are you now posting as Cheshire cat?'

      It was, I suppose, inevitable that anybody commenting here who did not disagree with or insult me, should be thought to be a sock puppet of mine! Cheshire cat comments on here from time to time and I dare say I can leave it to him to say who he is. Peter Williams of Alton in Hampshire is an illiterate, former painter of wooden legs, who also comes on here quite often.

      Delete
    3. that is horse crap Webb you not like some one who helped make legs for disabled people?
      I say your Illiterate and is your daughter still a card carrying member of the Labour party and does she regret being seen with that loser Ed Balls who helped run up the massive debts the UK now has

      Delete
    4. Is your past employment working with wooden legs the reason you talk like a pirate?

      Delete
    5. you don't like people who help disable people? you also a card carrying member of the Labour party like old Webb daughter is?
      come on now cat answer the question who funds LA,s?

      Delete
    6. Do you mean disabled?

      Delete
    7. answer cat or can you not bring yourself to say that the tax payers funds LA,s?

      Delete
    8. Did you mean disabled?

      Delete
    9. why can you not bring yourself to say that the tax payers fund LA.s?

      Delete
    10. People who disable people are horrible, no matter who funds LAs.

      Delete
  41. Willams is Peter Williams. Simon is Simon and I am Cheshire cat.

    ReplyDelete
  42. The idea of forming an entirely new identity to comment on my own blog is a new and, I must admit, enticing one! The scope for stimulating debates would be great and I am obliged to the person who suggested this scheme.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I have never heard of Williams so why do think I would recognise his writing style? What does he have to do with me?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Cheshire I'm simon really cat4 December 2013 at 11:17

    Sorry anonymous I got you confused with anonymous. I apologise profusely.

    ReplyDelete