Saturday, 27 February 2010

My personal life

For the last few days a number of people have been trying to draw me into some wildly hypothetical speculations, firstly about my possible future earnings and secondly about my ethical system. I cannot honestly think either of these topics are of any great interest to most of the people who visit this Blog. I rather assume that most people who come here are more interested in objective discussions about home education. However, this subject has now found its way onto three threads and I suppose that I should deal with it. I remember when I was not quick enough off the mark the last time some lunatic dreamed up an idea like this. This was that I was a colleague of Graham Badman. Some fool even wrote to the editor of the Times Educational Supplement with that gem! I notice that the rumour is now being started here that I shall actually be working for Graham Badman.

To answer first the question that is evidently preying upon the mind of one of the people who have commented here. This question seemed to be as follows; whether or not I consider it legitimate for somebody to enquire about my financial affairs if I am campaigning for or against legislation which might at some point in the future benefit or disadvantage me. It is, on the face of it, an extraordinary question. Apart from the Inland revenue, possibly the police and certainly my wife, who can possibly have any legitimate questions about my earnings? Why should a complete stranger, writing anonymously, think that my income was any of her business? My answer to the question is this. A priori, nobody but those mentioned above can have any legitimate interest in my financial affairs. The onus is really upon anybody expressing an interest to demonstrate that their interest is more than vulgar curiosity. I should take a great deal of persuading!

Turning now to the absolutely breathtaking suggestion that I shall be working with, for or on behalf of local authorities if the new legislation is passed, words fail me. I currently run a small charity in east London which provides advocacy and advice for the parents of children with special educational needs. Some of my work entails helping parents deregister their children from school, often in the face of opposition from the local authority. As a result of this I am on pretty bad terms with the London boroughs of Hackney, Islington, Waltham Forest and Tower Hamlets. When I lived In Haringey I unilaterally withdrew my elder daughter from school for one day each week in order to teach her at home. This resulted in legal action. In Essex, I fell out with the elective home education department to the extent that I made several Freedom of Information requests and then made a complaint to the Information Commissioners office. I have rowed with the education department of every local authority with which I have ever had dealings. These rows have always been about home education. What local authority would possibly wish to employ me in any capacity connected with home education? They all regard me as a crazed fanatic. The idea is absolutely mad.

I hope that this puts an end to this nonsense. I am always keen to discuss home education, but my financial affairs and moral code I regard as essentially private matters. It has never crossed my mind for a moment to ask whether any of those opposing the Children, schools and families Bill are doing so because they might suffer financially. Although I regard them as mistaken, I have always assumed that they were motivated by concern for vulnerable children. It really did not occur to me that the fact that they were campaigning against a change in the law would give me any "legitimate interest" in their earnings! It's none of my business, any more than my earnings are any of theirs. Perhaps we could get back to the subject of home education now. I really do not feel inclined to respond to any more of this foolishness, but if anybody really does want to know about my income or ethical code, I suppose that they could email me privately at simon.webb14@btinternet.com.

12 comments:

  1. From my experience of blogland, ethical issues are often discussed. Feel free to ignore any ongoing ethical discussions between commenter's here if ethics make you feel uncomfortable. Unless you want to ban the mention of ethics? But this could severely limit discussions of current education issues. Unless you think ethics have nothing to do with Khyra or coercion for instance?

    ReplyDelete
  2. A simple NO I am not and have not been a colleague of Badman and a simple NO I am not going to work for/ with Badman would have done.

    A lot of words but none actually answer those questions.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We are not interested in your personal life. You are nothing special.

    Not a celebrity.
    Not royalty.
    You don't save lives.
    You just enjoy upsetting them.
    You are just a nasty ,septic, bitter, frustrated, old man, with attitude.


    Nothing more.


    So don't flatter yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I have met the people from the Essex home ed service, and if you managed to upset them, you must've been trying. They are actually quite pro home ed.

    ReplyDelete
  5. No. I wasn't trying to upset them at all. Nor did I say that they were upset; I said I rowed with them. I got on perfectly well with Rumer Lacey and Helen Powell. If you think that Mike Allpress is pro home education, then I am afraid you are mistaken. While I got on OK with Rumer Lacey, she referred my daughter to the Connexions Service without my permission. Those involved with home education for a while will be familiar with some of the objections to the Connexions Service; I shall not go into this now. Whether through inefficiency or otherwise, Rumer lacey couldn't seem to give me the information which I required from her files when I wanted to look into this. I was obliged to make a Freddom of Information request to Chelmsford. This became mired down in the matter of Gillick competence and I had to go to the Information Commissioner's office. I like Rumer Lacey well enough as a person, but that does not mean that I would let her get away with a stunt like sending my daughter's details to Connexions!

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I was obliged to make a Freddom of Information request to Chelmsford. This became mired down in the matter of Gillick competence and I had to go to the Information Commissioner's office."

    Shouldn't that have been a subject access request?

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Apart from the Inland revenue, possibly the police and certainly my wife, who can possibly have any legitimate questions about my earnings? Why should a complete stranger, writing anonymously, think that my income was any of her business? My answer to the question is this. A priori, nobody but those mentioned above can have any legitimate interest in my financial affairs."

    I don't think legitimate was used in that sense - justified might have been more appropriate. So, if Capita lobbied for the ID card Bill would you also agree that any possibility of an income they might gain as result of ID card database contracts is likewise irrelevant?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've just read this article, http://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/content/hackney/gazette/news/story.aspx?brand=HKYGOnline&category=news&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newshkyg&itemid=WeED04%20Nov%202009%2011%3A32%3A42%3A983 about your charity. It sounds as though your work is valuable. Any luck with renewing funding? It sounds as though people will lose a lifeline if the charity folds.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There was first a subject access request under the data protection Act, followed by a FOI request.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you for enquiring about Hackney. Yes, we have found a funder now who isn't the local authority.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That's good news - probably a good idea not to be reliant on state funding at this time.

    ReplyDelete
  12. When the anonymous person said 'We are not interested..." I thought he/she/it must have been speaking for all anonymouses, but apparently not. It must have been the royal 'we' then, hence the need to denounce you for not being royalty.

    Do you think you have a royal stalker, Simon?

    More seriously, surely the fact that people need your help to fight the local authority indicates that something is already wrong. Why is it a good idea to be give these people MORE powers to exercise their arbitrary judgements?

    ReplyDelete