Sunday 15 December 2013
Why I started this blog
Now that some of the less well-balanced types seem to have wandered off elsewhere, I thought that I might explain how and why I came to start this blog. Since it was largely to counter the activities of people like Lisa Amphlett that I began blogging back in 2009, readers might find this interesting. It will also not have escaped notice that I have recently been called a ‘creepy stalker’ and ‘bully’; these complaints too are worth examining.
In the summer of 2009, before this blog existed, I found myself the target of a good deal of venom by Lisa Amphlett and others. Complete strangers were inventing all sorts of mad stories about me and spreading them all over the internet. I had no way of countering these falsehoods and since they were being related publicly, I thought that I should take steps to deal with them. Before I started this blog, Lisa Amphlett was already telling people that I was dangerous:
https://twitter.com/untwining/status/2926565462
This was at a time that I had never even heard of her! I am tempted to ask in what way Lisa Amphlett thought that I was dangerous. Did she think that I was physically abusive? Was I a rapist or murderer? No, it was simply that I had a different view about home education than she herself had. Since I had at that time been home educating for eleven years, while she herself was not even a home educator, you might find it a bit rich that she should choose to say such a thing.
What sort of stories were being fabricated and spread at that time? Well, that I was a former colleague of Graham Badman, for one. The general view among Lisa Amphlett and her cronies like Maire Stafford these days seems to be that googling people’s names is ‘cyber stalking’. They have certainly changed their view about this. Maire Stafford, who by the way was also making offensive tweets about me at the same time as Lisa Amphlett; that is to say before I started this blog, was all in favour of this sort of thing. Before we look at that, let’s look at a tweet of Maire’s on July 30th 2009:
https://twitter.com/Maire52/status/2927163148
On the same day, some fool posted this on the HE-UK list:
There is a Simon Webb mentioned here as an Area Education Officer.... under
Badman! Listed is the
CFHE Directorate Structure Chart which is readily available on the
internet.... .
http://docs. google.com/ gview?a=v
<="" docs.="" em="" google.com="" gview?a="v&" q="cache:W9Udfm7e" whatdotheyknow.=""
m/request/7844/ response/ 21038/attach/ 2/cfe-structure- chart1106. pdf+Simon+ Web
b+badman&hl= en>
&q=cache:W9Udfm7eA8 AJ:www.whatdothe yknow.com/ request/7844/ response/ 21038/att
ach/2/cfe-structure -chart1106. pdf+Simon+ Webb+badman& hl=en
Like many others, this person had been researching my life and googling my name to see if he could find anything interesting about me and my family. You might have thought that people like Lisa Amphlett and Maire Stafford would denounce this as ‘creepy stalking’ or ‘cyber stalking’, but you would be wrong. That same day, Maire Stafford said of this on the HE-UK list:
Brilliant research
Oddly enough, nobody thought that there was anything creepy about the remarks being made about my daughter and the attempts to connect me with Graham Badman. Perhaps Lisa Amphlett did not know about this smear campaign? Of course she did, otherwise she would hardly have tweeted on August 7th 2009 that; ‘Simon Webb says that he is not badman's colleague.’ Lisa Amphlett was right in the thick of the attacks on me at that time;
https://twitter.com/untwining/status/3175964397
This is why I started this blog; to provide a platform to tackle the rumours that these people were doing their best to spread. Those who have been talking about stalking and bullying might stop and ask themselves why they did not have so much to say about this when researching my life on the internet was such a flourishing cottage industry! Of course, there was not a word of truth in the idea that I was or had been a colleague of Graham Badman's. Here's an idea, the next time that anybody feels like saying that I have been cyber stalking or bullying; don't bother. I cannot tell readers how revolting it is to see people like Lisa Amphlett now claiming to be upset. If she and others like here had not been so keen to dig into my life and tell lies about me in the past, this blog would not even exist.
Simon, you really are losing the plot here. During the Badman attack on home ed. you sided with the little shit. And even got a signed copy of his report. You turned up at the select committee supporting Badman...so many of us thought you were a prime c*nt. Get over it. Do not pin your crap on Lisa. With no best wishes. Raquel.
ReplyDeleteThat comment has to be, hands down, the most accurate and on point commentary this blog has ever seen or is ever likely to see. Standing ovation from me.
DeleteThe half-wits are back, then.
Deleteoooh what a little keyboard warrior you are. Raquel
Delete'so many of us thought you were a prime c*nt. Get over it. Do not pin your crap on Lisa. With no best wishes. Raquel.'
DeleteAs a general rule, when somebody is unable or unwilling to answer the points I have made and then calls me a cunt into the bargain; I assume that they agree that what I have said is true, but is very annoying to hear.
assume away. But wrong. I take it you never google a public figure then? . I did not call you a cunt, I just think you are one. Just as a commenter mentioned below about you being a person, so are the people you blog about. How about you and your fans think about that? Raquel
Delete' I did not call you a cunt, I just think you are one.'
DeleteCome come, Raquel. If I say to a man, 'many of us thought that you were a prime cunt', do you really not see how the use of the word 'us', in this context, suggests that I share this view?
Ok, I hold my hands up and called a spade a spade. I am sorry to have done it on your blog. I should maybe have done it on an email list where you are a member and then you could have dragged it over here. It was very unfair of me to spoil your fun. Raquel.
Delete'Ok, I hold my hands up and called a spade a spade. I am sorry to have done it on your blog.'
DeleteI was not objecting to your calling me a cunt! I was drawing attention to the way that having done so, you then tried to backtrack. I can't help but notice that some of those commenting here today wish to shout out as many rude words as they can. So far, we have had fuck, cunt, shit and crap. All we need for a complete set of playground abuse is bum-bum and willy!
are we playing bingo again. Raquel
DeleteAs a feminist, I am deeply offended by your use of the c word as an insult to men, Raquel. It makes me wonder if you are entirely comfortable in your gender.
DeleteIt's like how little boys call each other 'gay' or 'girl' when they want to offend them. It's just not on.
Raquel that made me laugh. The badman attack?? You make yourself sound like some sort of home education freedom fighters. So are you saying that the attacks on simon were justified as he thought different to you? You never answered the points about creepy stalking thst simon is now vilified for but was once seen as heroic. Pathetic.
ReplyDeleteAttacks on Simon? Wow so you share his paranoid delusions then.
DeleteSome people, presumably Cheshire Cat is one, are interested in the TRUTH, even if it comes from someone whose views we do not share.
DeleteNobody is stalking him. The Badman report was an attack on our freedoms and yes there was a fight by many home educators to protect those freedoms. This fight was not just mine. Maybe you could read up on it before commenting any more instead of grinning like an inane idiot and talking nonsense. Raquel
ReplyDelete'Nobody is stalking him'
DeleteThey clearly were doing exactly that. He has provided the evidence.
I agree with you that the Badman Review was an attack on HE, part of an orchestrated campaign the Labour government conducted. However, that does not excuse the 'creepy stalking' and lies that were told about Simon. He's a person, not a blog or an inanimate object.
Sure, he's annoying and I've written many, many comments here over the last few years arguing with his ideas. Perhaps, instead of calling him foul names, you could do the same?
Well I would not know what you have done, considering you are anon. I have argued with his ideas too. I think some of them are dangerous. If that is all that Lisa laid at his feet, I do not think it is worthy of a whole ranting blog post from him. Simon put himself in the public eye by writing an article supporting Badman. I hope it has not gone unnoticed by his readers that Badman was not popular nor were his views. This is not just the opinion of us unsavoury few or whatever derogatory name he has for us this week. ( oh I see we are the *less well-balanced types*). The readers might like to look up the actual content of Schedule 1 of the Children, Schools and Families Bill and see why anyone supporting that would be considered dangerous to home education. Not a dangerous rapist, not a murderer, just a danger in that they support a philosophy which would affect the freedoms that we enjoy now. Raquel
Delete'If that is all that Lisa laid at his feet, I do not think it is worthy of a whole ranting blog post from him'
DeleteI would have been happy to debate this point with Lisa Amphlett on her own blog. Unfortunately, she says that it upsets her and she has asked me not to comment there again. I was sorry that she was upset to see me commenting on her blog; I was perfectly polite. Lord knows what state she would have been in if I had adopted your tactics Raquel and called her a cunt!
The reason for this recent post is that I am trying to counter-act more rumours that are being spread. Lisa refers on her blog to, ' your ongoing harassment and bullying of people who challenge you' and also, 'your ongoing treatment of me elsewhere'. I am not going to let any of this pass without comment. Since she does not wish for me to comment on her own blog, I am doing so here. I have not harassed or bullied anybody. Lisa Amphlett is not telling the truth about this and I want to make sure that everybody knows this.
I have read your comment on her blog and her response to you. Again you are twisting things. But I am sure Lisa can defend herself on this one if she feels the need to. Raquel.
DeleteThose famous comments, in full
DeleteRaquel is now trying to start a rumour of her own, by suggesting that I am twisting things about Lisa Amphlett's response to my comments. Let's see. First read what I wrote about this above and then read the comment which I made on Lisa's blog:
'Hmmm, I can still see some untruthful rumours being spread here. For example:
‘ Other parents have, in the past, been understandably upset to have had their children unnecessarily mentioned by Simon Webb — it’s not something that most of us would consider doing out of human decency. I have a lot of sympathy for them.’
Obviously removing names, where necessary, could you perhaps give us one or two cases where this has happened? It is an old lie that has been circulating for a long time now and I am sorry to see you perpetuating it.'
Here is Lisa Amphlett's response. How exactly am I twisting things?
'“Other parents have, in the past, been understandably upset to have had their children unnecessarily mentioned by Simon Webb”
This is absolutely true.
In light of your ongoing harassment and bullying of people who challenge you, I’m not willing to share any information they have shared with me. You will have it already. Additionally, your habit of deleting and re-editing content means that your blog is not a credible source either.
Perhaps you think you have justification for mentioning the children and families of strangers you have decided to target. However, the question is whether a reasonable person would consider it to be distressing.
Given your ongoing treatment of me elsewhere I now question your motives for referring to my daughter so specifically. It was unnecessary, I am upset, and that is understandable. Please do not contact me again.
Lisa Amphlett'
You said It upsets Lisa to debate a point on her blog. What Lisa was upset about is that you gave the name and age of her child in an email to her. You could have just said "your daughter". I do get why that feels creepy. It would be like me emailing someone I did not know well and saying are you at home? and then putting their address. Just because their address may be found online, it would be odd to mention it. It could be considered an act of intimidation...in a "I know where you live" sense. So yes, I do think you are twisting things. Raquel
DeleteTalk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
Delete'What Lisa was upset about is that you gave the name and age of her child in an email to her. You could have just said "your daughter". I do get why that feels creepy. It would be like me emailing someone I did not know well and saying are you at home? and then putting their address.'
DeleteThis is absolute nonsense. My own daughter, like Lisa's has been mentioned in newspapers. People have contacted me at various times after seeing such articles and asked for advice and so on. often, they have used my daughter's name, saying things such as, 'I was so glad to see that XXXX managed to do such and such'. far from finding this creepy, I thought that it was a personal touch. I certainly found it more human than somebody writing and referring to, 'your daughter, aged so and so'. For heaven's sake, can we get a little perspective here? If you ring up the papers and advertise your daughter's name and age, then people might well then refer to the child by name. It is not creepy stalking at all; or at least, most people would not think it so. It is not at all uncommon for people to refer to my own daughter by her given name on this blog. Why would I be upset about that?
to be fair, Lisa was not that bothered from what I know. But I thought it creepy and it was one who stated that on twitter. Raquel.
Deleteyour daughter is a young adult, not a child. If you emailed me with the name and ages of my daughters I would find it a bit creepy. I am sorry you cannot see that Simon. I have things to do now. I would hate to be accused of neglecting the education of my children because I am on the internet too much.Oh, but you have already accused us of that. Raquel
DeleteLisa wasn't bothered but you thought you would take up the fight on her behalf anyway?
Deleteshe was not the one who said anything about it on twitter. She never stated she was bothered until the post on her blog which is above. You will see that she then began to question the motives behind naming her daughter and that is when she felt uneasy about it. She asked Simon not to contact her again so he brought it here. I am taking up the fight on her behalf because she did not complain about Simon. I called him creepy on twitter. Not Lisa. So I am taking up with him here. Raquel
Delete'your daughter is a young adult, not a child. '
DeleteMy daughter featured in magazines such as Bella in the mid 1990s. The circumstances of her birth were very unusual and she was referred to in a couple of magazines as a, 'miracle baby'. We had letters from people after that, when she was two, referring to her by name. I did not find that at all creepy.
I must also mention that we appeared on the Wright Stuff when she was fourteen. This was in defence of home education and there is a clip of the programme on Youtube. One of the women on the panel said that my daughter looked more like my wife than my daughter. In 2009, when various home educators were looking for information on my family, they hit upon this clip. There was a long discussion on one of the biggest internet lists as to whether my daughter really was my wife. You would think that somebody might have objected to this on the grounds that it was creepy stalking, but not on of the thousands of people on the list said anything at all. It strikes me that all this stuff about stalking and harassment has only begun recently and is only applicable to me!
'I am taking up the fight on her behalf because she did not complain about Simon. I called him creepy on twitter. Not Lisa. So I am taking up with him here. Raquel'
DeleteWhich means, i suppose, that it was you who began the rumour that I had mentioned the name of Lisa Amphlett's child on this blog? It all begins to make sense now. Am I right in thinking that your twitter account is Offshorebella?
yes that is me and it is at this point you can misquote my tweet once again. Raquel
Deleteand btw that tweet could have been about anyone or a general observation about bloggers. Was hardly a rumour started about you when you were not even named. You did mention her daughters name in an email though. Did I lie? Raquel
Delete'Was hardly a rumour started about you when you were not even named.'
DeleteAgain, different rules are applied when I write anything here. When I discussed the woman who went to Ireland, i did not name her. This did not stop a number of people, you included, becoming annoyed.
'You did mention her daughters name in an email though. Did I lie? Raquel'
The rumour that was spreading was that I named the daughter on here. This is why Peter Flynn talked of complaining to Blogspot and contacting the police. As to whether you lied, I'm not sure. You said that if I mentioned your daughter's name, your partner would become violent towards me. I certainly hope that you lied about about this, because if you are really living with a man who is likely to become angry and physically aggressive if his wife receives a letter or email which refers to her child's name, then you might want to think about the course that your life has taken.
"might need holding back" Given his very gentle nature the worst he would do is just call you a cunt. He does not tend to swear like me, so that is the extent of what I meant. Please note this is a clarification of that tweet. So you have no need to carry on down that line of thought. Nobody in my family has any intention of physically harming anyone. My point is and was that he would be pissed off. Raquel
DeleteOh look, everybody! Here is the source of the rumour that I had mentioned Lisa Amphlett's daughter on this blog. Raquel, who knew the facts perfectly well, blogged on December 4th, saying:
Delete'it is really fucking creepy when a blogger finds out the names of a person's children and uses them in his blog or emails to the parents.'
Observe how neatly this was done. She knew very well that I hadn't used the child's name on this blog, but thought it worth hinting that I had done so. This is of course where Peter Flynn picked up the idea. It is always interesting to be able to track down a rumour to its original source. Was this innocently done? It's hard to believe! Even more intriguing is the fact that Raquel has now deleted this Tweet, hoping to give the impression that I was imagining the idea that anybody had suggested that I had put a child's name on this blog! Why would you do that, Raquel?
there are several times that you have talked about people's children on your blog to make some point or other by going to their parents blogs and using info. I do not think they wrote blogs about their children for you to go mining in them to attack their beliefs etc. It might not be illegal but I find it creepy. And you do not. So we are at a stalemate. Raquel
Deletethe tweet is still there why would you say it is not? Raquel
DeleteThis tweet?
Deletehttps://twitter.com/offshorebella/status/408341398149414912
Or this one?
Deletehttps://twitter.com/offshorebella/status/408317234071994368
They look to be all still there.
Simon was accused of being a creepy stalker yet those people googling simons name were told it was "great research". Explain please. . Or is it simply one rule for you and a different rule for others.
ReplyDeleteThis explains it http://home-educationlunatic.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/why-i-started-this-blog-and-dont-know.html?m=1
Delete#one tweet grudge
DeleteROFL
'This explains it http://home-educationlunatic.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/why-i-started-this-blog-and-dont-know.html?m=1'
ReplyDeleteAs a piece of schoolboy humour, it just about works. As a refutation of what I said above, it fails. I am not going to go point by point through a spoof of this sort; that would be terminally sad. It is flattering though that there are now not one but two spoof blogs which are devoted to imitating this one!
One point that I will address is that the story about my being a colleague of Graham Badman was restricted to a private email list. It was not. Once it had been suggested there, the list owner, Mike Fortune-Wood, went onto the comments page on the Times Educational Supplement and, posting as Maesk123, repeated the idea publicly. A year later, Kelly Green in Canada, who ran the Kelly Green and Gold blog on home education, claimed that I was an adviser to both Graham Badman and the Department for Children, Schools and Families. The rumours which were begun as a result of people googling my name had spread halfway across the world!
DeleteAll of which has fuck all to do with Lisa Amphlett. Simon-one-tweet-grudge-Webb.
DeleteIt is flattering though that there are now not one but two spoof blogs which are devoted to imitating this one!
DeleteTwo? Really? Because of course, everything is about you right?
'All of which has fuck all to do with Lisa Amphlett. Simon-one-tweet-grudge-Webb.'
DeleteYou misunderstand me. I had completely forgotten about Lisa Amphlett and tweets. She has however a rather distinctive name and when she came on here a few weeks ago and then emailed me, I knew that it rang a bell. Then I recalled that she had been one of those saying offensive things about me and helping to spread untruthful rumours. She does not appear to have changed for the better over the last four or five years, because she is still playing the same game!
'Two? Really? Because of course, everything is about you right?'
DeleteWhether everything is about me or not, I really don't feel able to say, but there are certainly two spoof blogs about this blog. The authors of both come on here to draw attention to them. One, we have seen today. Here is the other;
https://homeedlampoon.wordpress.com/
Lampoon is not "about" your blog. Certainty doesn't imitate it.
Delete'All of which has fuck all to do with Lisa Amphlett. '
DeleteThe connection, for those of us with slower wits than average, is that Lisa Amphlett was drawing attention to this silly story about my being a colleague of Graham Badman in a public tweet. It was people like her who took the rumour from a private list and made it public.
"Then I recalled that she had been one of those saying offensive things about me and helping to spread untruthful rumours"
DeleteAbsolute piffle. Lisa tweeted about your own blog post refuting rumours of your association with Badman and you twist that into "evidence" she was somehow responsible for the rumours because she dared tweet she thought you were dangerous. I am sure Lisa was only referring to home education but frankly Simon your need to control women and your belief that you are justified in punishing them for defying you by making up lies on your blog 4 years later *does* make you a dangerous man in my opinion.
Absolute nonsense
'your need to control women and your belief that you are justified in punishing them'
DeleteThis is a new untruthful rumour! You see how adept these people are at this?
' Lisa tweeted about your own blog post refuting rumours of your association with Badman'
She did nothing of the sort. She said that I denied being Badman's colleague. Until people started saying stuff like this publicly, most people had not even known that such a rumour existed. Lisa Amphlett does not indicate whether she believes my denial, simply notes it.
This is all very well but nobody has answered why when simon googles things he's a stalker and when other people do they are doing excellent research. Please try to answer this without the use of profanities or spoof blogs.
ReplyDeleteHere's an idea. Get a dictionary and look up the words private and public. Private individuals research public figure in private. Public figure researches private individuals in public. Doh. And still nothing whatsoever to do with Lisa.
Delete'Public figure researches private individuals in public'
DeleteIn what possible sense can I be thought of as a public figure? I have a blog, so does Lisa Amphlett. My views on home education have appeared in newspapers; so have hers. What is it that allows her to remain a private individual, but forces me into the public domain? This is a genuine question, as it raises a number of interesting points.
Because he does not just use google. Try to keep up kitty cat
ReplyDelete'Because he does not just use google. '
DeleteLisa Amphlett sent me an email, which she copied to a third party of whom I had never heard. I googled this man's name and found that the first hit was a newspaper article mentioning him and Lisa Amphlett. That is the sum total of my research on Lisa Amphlett. I had already told her that I did not want any communication with her. If she had not sent me, against my wishes, a personal email and if that email had not been copied to a third party, I would still know nothing about the woman. It was she who set all this in motion.
Old Webb and his labour card carrying daughter did meet with crazy Badman and have never as far as i know said what both of them said to him. Why don't you tell on here what you said to him?
ReplyDeletehow come he met you and your daughter but refuses to meet other home educated children and parents who had wrote to him?
TWO blogs ABOUT you???!!! Delusional cunt!!!
ReplyDeleteI am myself a fairly robust person who does not in the least object to swearing. However, that is now two people who have used the word 'cunt' and I might point out that for many, especially women, this is an exceedingly offensive word to be bandied about as a term of abuse.
ReplyDeleteI think that the take-home message here is that if you Tweet publicly about somebody, calling him dangerous and referring to falsehoods which are being spread about him, and then subsequently pop up on his blog and then contact him by email, even though he has asked you not to; then you are really the author of your own misfortune.There is a limit to how often I will allow people to twist my tail, before I react.
ReplyDeleteShe didn't pop up on your blog out of the blue though, did she? You mentioned her by name here first, if I remember rightly, and she came to address your allegations.
Delete'You mentioned her by name here first, if I remember rightly, and she came to address your allegations.'
DeleteLisa Amphlett appeared here on December 4th, in response to a post which I made about the woman who went to Ireland;
@untwining4 December 2013 05:39
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'
I had made no allegations at all about Lisa Amphlett and she was not mentioned in the post.
Oh yes, that's right. It was at the end of November when you kept mentioning her by name. And quite a lot since.
Delete"twist my tail"... Pretty apt, for a rat!
ReplyDelete"one of those saying offensive things about me and helping to spread untruthful rumours"
ReplyDeletePots! Kettles!
"I thought that I might explain how and why I came to start this blog. Since it was largely to counter the activities of people like Lisa Amphlett that I began blogging back in 2009"
ReplyDeleteSo this is a "Revenge Blog" and the only thing it has to do with home education is that you did home educate and the people you are getting revenge against are home educators.
You have (and still have) the power to rise above it, ignore it, do something positive for yourself and home education with this blog!
Simon you can try and twist things to the point of madness but your blog and reputation for stirring go before you. You cannot be trusted at all. Lisa's reputation on the other hand is quite the opposite.
ReplyDelete"So this is a "Revenge Blog" and the only thing it has to do with home education is that you did home educate and the people you are getting revenge against are home educators. "
ReplyDeleteYes it is self-evidently a revenge blog. By his own admission. And this also supports Cindy's assertion that Simon punishes those whom he cannot control.
Who do you imagine he *can* control?
DeleteI don't see someone punishing anyone. I see someone concerned for his reputation attempting to get at the truth.
'Yes it is self-evidently a revenge blog.'
ReplyDeleteDo you actually know what, 'self-evidently' means? It is not just another way of saying that you believe something to be true! I have not the slightest wish to control Lisa Amphlett or anybody else. I am however eager to stop them telling untruthful stories about me. If anybody chooses to see this as 'revenge', then so be it.