Monday, 25 November 2013

Lisa Amphlett's open letter to Graham Stuart

One of the women who signed the appeal for money to help a mother skip the country, at which we looked yesterday, has now published an open letter to Graham Stuart:

Posted by at
Labels: , , , ,

106 comments:

  1. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 11:31

    What an excellent letter. Thank you for sharing this.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 11:38

    Way to go Lisa, excellent letter. More like this please simon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 12:11

    Brilliant letter Lisa. Thank you for asking the questions that so many of us want the answers to in such a reasoned way.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 12:44

    I'm really glad Simon has used his blog to bring attention to the appeal to help this lady emigrate. I also signed the appeal and was and am glad and proud to stand alongside this lady and all the other signatories in helping her to protect her family from unwarranted intrusion by public sector employees. It's good to see Simon highlighting something so positive for a change!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 12:49

    And did you know his daughter enjoyed some autonomy in her home education? He really is transpiring to be a good egg after all.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 12:56

    Gosh, who would have thought it?!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:00

    Do you think now that Lisa has "Just asked", Graham Stuart and/or the secretariat support will answer?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:01

    I know! After all that complaining about autonomous home educators! Turns out he didn't really know what one was. But he does now, so that's ok.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:16

      Excellent. So it's all been a storm in a teacup then. I'm sure having been allowed to manage her own learning, even a little, will have equipped Simone with an essential skill for university that she otherwise wouldn't have had.

      Delete
  9. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:05

    Lisa "just asked" so hopefully Graham will answer as readily as he answered Simon.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:13

    Let's hope so!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 13:16

    'Lisa "just asked" so hopefully Graham will answer as readily as he answered Simon.'

    I suppose that this largely depends upon whether she actually contacts Graham Stuart. I suspect that it would have taken me a lot longer than an hour and a half to get a response, had I just put my question here as a blog post; rather than addressing it personally to the MP himself!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 13:17

    'And did you know his daughter enjoyed some autonomy in her home education?'

    Seriously, can anybody envisage any education where a child was actively prevented from learning things which she wished to know about? What would such an education look like, I wonder? More to the point, has anybody ever seen such an education in practice?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:18

    well she obviously is not stupid and also sent it to him.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:18

    Oh look, what a silly billy Simon is, he thinks Lisa didn't actually send the letter. How pointless that would be eh?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:24

    especially as she asked GS on twitter if it would be ok to email him and he said it would. LOL

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 13:40

      'especially as she asked GS on twitter if it would be ok to email him and he said it would. LOL'

      I asked, because on more than one occasion involving matters concerning home education, it has happened that an open letter of this sort has been published and not actually sent to the person to whom it is addressed. Then, later on, the accusation has been made that the points raised are being ignored. I was just checking that this gambit is not being used in the present case and that Lisa Amphlett has in fact sent a copy of this to Graham Stuart.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:46

      "I was just checking that this gambit is not being used in the present case"

      How silly Simon is being. Lisa does not use gambits - everyone knows that!!

      Delete
    3. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:46

      Those of us who know Lisa have no such fears.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:50

      "Thank you for taking the time to engage with me on Twitter and invite communication via email. In the interests of openness and transparency, this is an open letter that I will publish on my blog along with any response."
      It seems very clear to me that the letter on the blog is a copy of the one she has sent..but then I'm not a sloppy thinker...

      Delete
    5. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 14:04

      'It seems very clear to me that the letter on the blog is a copy of the one she has sent..but then I'm not a sloppy thinker...'

      As I believe I said above, this has happened before and it then turns out that the letter was only published on a list or in a blog. I have no idea if that is the case here. If it is not, then perhaps Graham Stuart will answer it. It will probably take a lot longer for her to receive an answer than it did for me to do so; for obvious reasons.

      Delete
  16. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:26

    Oops a daisy, would that be sloppy thinking on Simon's part do we think? ;) Never mind nobody's perfect and at least Simone had a little educational freedom. That gladdens my heart.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:28

    'Seriously, can anybody envisage any education where a child was actively prevented from learning things which she wished to know about? What would such an education look like, I wonder? More to the point, has anybody ever seen such an education in practice?'

    Exactly. All good home educators allow their children some learning freedom, so we all make some use of the autonomous method. I think it will take a while for you to fully grasp this and you should be patient with yourself while you're still trying to come to terms with this new realisation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 13:35

      ' All good home educators allow their children some learning freedom, so we all make some use of the autonomous method.'

      I wasn't really thinking about home education. Most school children learn about various things that are not prescribed in the curriculum. You seem to be saying, if I understand you correctly, that you find it impossible to envisage any kind of education which is not autonomous; whether at home or school. Is that really what you are saying? What I asked was for a description of what an education might look like, where a child was prevented or even discouraged from learning about things that she wished to know. Can anybody visualise such a scenario?

      Delete
    2. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:44

      'What I asked was for a description of what an education might look like, where a child was prevented or even discouraged from learning about things that she wished to know. Can anybody visualise such a scenario?'

      Of course. A child who was deprived access to educational stimulus and the free time to enjoy it in her own way and on her own terms. We do hear of such poor children but thankfully not often.

      Delete
    3. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 13:53

      'Of course. A child who was deprived access to educational stimulus and the free time to enjoy it in her own way and on her own terms. We do hear of such poor children but thankfully not often.'

      I am bound to say that with one or two exceptions from the literature, all pathological cases, I have never heard of such a thing. Have you actually seen a child subjected to this regime; where she was deprived of access to educational stimulus and had no free time? If this is the only instance of a non-autonomous education, then clearly it must be vanishingly rare. You certainly appear to be saying that almost every child in the country is receiving an autonomous education of some kind. Is that really what you are claiming?

      Delete
    4. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:04

      'You certainly appear to be saying that almost every child in the country is receiving an autonomous education of some kind. Is that really what you are claiming?'

      I would hope most were. Clearly Simone received more than most, but don't worry. This makes you a good parent, not a bad one.

      Delete
    5. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 14:07

      'I would hope most were'

      You are saying then that you believe that every schoolchild in the United Kingdom, with extremely rare exceptions, is receiving an autonomous education. Would you say that this does justice to your position?

      Delete
    6. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:12

      'You are saying then that you believe that every schoolchild in the United Kingdom, with extremely rare exceptions, is receiving an autonomous education. Would you say that this does justice to your position?'

      How would it do justice to my position to express autonomous learning as some kind of exclusive activity? It is as common as muck and as you say, quite difficult to thwart. Good parents such as yourself encourage as much of it as possible. It is a natural process to seek to satisfy one's curiosity, is it not?

      Delete
    7. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 14:46

      'How would it do justice to my position to express autonomous learning as some kind of exclusive activity?'

      You seem to be claiming that every schoolchild, with the odd exception, in this country is receiving an autonomous education. have I understood you correctly on this point?

      Delete
    8. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:55

      'You seem to be claiming that every schoolchild, with the odd exception, in this country is receiving an autonomous education. have I understood you correctly on this point?'

      To 'receive autonomous education' the child would have to be able to spend at least some free time in an environment conducive to learning, such as a home with books and computers, museums, libraries and other interesting places. So sadly no, not every schoolchild receives this as you point out in your previous post. But it seems like Simone received plenty of it, as did my own child.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 15:10

      I would add that the availability of a helpful parent or other facilitator enhances this provision. I am sure you know a lot about this Simon, having done this for Simone so often.

      Delete
    10. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 21:43

      'To 'receive autonomous education' the child would have to be able to spend at least some free time in an environment conducive to learning, such as a home with books and computers, museums, libraries and other interesting places.'

      I think I am beginning to see what you mean. So a child at school who joined the astronomy club, signed up to optional French lessons at lunchtime and chose to play chess with others, could not properly be described as an autonomous learner. To qualify for this status, the activities must take place off-site; not at school. Do I understand this correctly now; For you, autonomous learning can only take place away from the school environment? If this is indeed what you are saying, then I think that we can have a fruitful discussion.

      Delete
    11. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 00:57

      'For you, autonomous learning can only take place away from the school environment?'

      No, I think autonomous learning can take place anywhere, as long as the child is able to pursue her own interests on her own terms. Of course this does not exclude school. It is quite common for children home educated with the autonomous method to choose to go to school, as I am sure you know.

      Where learning is not autonomous, the child has no choice and is simply rote learning under orders, or not learning at all.

      I think your willingness to learn more about the subject you have misunderstood so much in the past is quite laudable, by the way.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 03:04

      Albeit scandalously belated, after the reams of bile he has spewed about it.

      Delete
    13. Simon Webb26 November 2013 at 10:13

      'Albeit scandalously belated, after the reams of bile he has spewed about it.'

      Nobody in Home Education Land ever simply writes about something! Instead, they, 'spew bile'.

      Delete
    14. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 10:22

      Good point! And neatly sidestepping the issue as well. Chapeau.

      Delete
  18. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:36

    I would just like to point out that one does not skip the country unless they are wanted for something, Nobody had committed a crime and therefore nobody helped anyone skip the country. The person was free to leave the UK and enter the UK at will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 13:42

      'I would just like to point out that one does not skip the country unless they are wanted for something,'

      Not a bit of it; people might skip the country for all sorts of reasons which do not involve a crime. I have known a man get some girl pregnant and then nip off abroad. It was then remarked by mutual acquaintances that he had 'skipped the country'. The expression has, I think, a wider usage than is being suggested here.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:43

      Simon knows this of course, he was just naughtily using an idiomatic expression to add a particular spin the way he loves to, to try and provoke people into giving him information.

      Delete
    3. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 13:47

      'to try and provoke people into giving him information.'

      I'm more than a little baffled about this claim, which was also made yesterday. Why exactly would I be wanting information about this? If Gill Kilner had not made such a big production about it, this whole debate would never have taken place to begin with!

      Delete
    4. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:50

      'If Gill Kilner had not made such a big production about it, this whole debate would never have taken place to begin with!'

      But was it not you who raised the issue to her? And she who was just answering your questions in return? Just as you have also raised it in two separate posts since? You cannot in all seriousness be blaming Gill Kilner for this.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:55

      In all the years I have been dipping into this blog, I have yet to see Simon grasp the teensiest morsel of self-knowledge. When insights are presented to him they merely baffle him. I think this is one of the things that sets him apart from most other home educators.

      Delete
    6. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 13:58

      'But was it not you who raised the issue to her? And she who was just answering your questions in return? '

      I mentioned casually to Gill Kilner that I recognised her name as being one of those who sought funds to enable a woman to leave the country one step ahead of social services, after she had faced awkward questions about leaving her children alone in the house. This was strictly factual and based only upon what the mother herself claimed. It was when Gill Kilner referred to this statement as an unfounded assumption that the debate began! It was not unfounded, but rather founded upon the explicit statement of the woman for whom she had been raising money.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:59

      Is it Gill Kilner's fault if he sleeps late in the morning? Votes Conservative? Forgets to clean his teeth? I wonder if she knows what a burden of responsibility she carries.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:04

      I don't think Simon is capable of writing a strictly, objectively factual sentence. Simon does not know how to tell the difference between objective reality and his own views!!

      Delete
    9. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:06

      That's probably Gill Kilner's fault.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:14

      Snort!!

      Delete
    11. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 14:16

      ''If Gill Kilner had not made such a big production about it, this whole debate would never have taken place to begin with!'

      But was it not you who raised the issue to her? And she who was just answering your questions in return?'

      I think that part of the problem here is that people just put any old nonsense here and then hope that it will escape notice! I have not asked Gill Kilner any questions at all. She had plenty to say to me, including a few questions of her own, but i certainly did not ask her anything.

      Delete
    12. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:19

      'She had plenty to say to me, including a few questions of her own, but i certainly did not ask her anything.'

      Perhaps you could go and count each participant's words and question marks in that exchange, because I read it and that was not the impression I got.

      Delete
    13. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 14:25

      'Perhaps you could go and count each participant's words and question marks in that exchange, because I read it and that was not the impression I got.'

      After I mentioned that Gill Kilner had signed the appeal, I asked no questions at all. I offered clarification, but did not seek any information, nor ask a single question.

      Delete
    14. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:25

      I agree with you Anonymous. Cognitive dissonance on Simon's part?

      Delete
    15. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:29

      ''Perhaps you could go and count each participant's words and question marks in that exchange, because I read it and that was not the impression I got.''

      'After I mentioned that Gill Kilner had signed the appeal, I asked no questions at all. I offered clarification, but did not seek any information, nor ask a single question.'

      Hmm.. checking back, if that is your starting point then she asked you just one question, not a few. And you had plenty more to say on the subject of this family than she did. Still, you must blame Gill Kilner for your actions if you will! I am sure she will not mind.

      Delete
    16. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:30

      'I agree with you Anonymous. Cognitive dissonance on Simon's part?'

      Yes. I suppose it is less painful for him to blame Gill Kilner for his inability to let this matter lie. Poor Simon.

      Delete
    17. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 14:32

      'Cognitive dissonance on Simon's part?'

      I like this! Readers have persuaded themselves that i have been seeking information from Gil Kilner;despite the fact that I asked no questions at all and only offered her information. The way out of this for these people is to use cod psychology and suggest that my explanation is a sign of mental disturbance. See what i wrote yesterday about the debating tricks used by these characters. First there is the accusation of lies, then the threats of libel courts or the police. Following on from this comes the suggestion that i must be mentally ill or suffer from some syndrome such as autism. The novelty of these tactics long ago wore off, but it is interesting to see them still being used. Honestly, I wonder sometimes if these people are really sock puppets of mine; so clearly to they illustrate my points for me!

      Delete
    18. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:35

      Is Simon blaming his own sock puppets for his actions now? Oh dear. I fear there is no hope for him, the poor fellow.

      Delete
    19. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 14:35

      'Hmm.. checking back, if that is your starting point then she asked you just one question, not a few. And you had plenty more to say on the subject of this family than she did. Still, you must blame Gill Kilner for your actions if you will! I am sure she will not mind.'

      No. you don't seem to be understanding the point here. It has several times been suggested that i am trying to get information about this family. Specifically, the suggestion was made that I had been asking questions of Gill Kilner about them. I am pointing out that rather than seeking information, I was giving it.

      Delete
    20. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:40

      'I am pointing out that rather than seeking information, I was giving it.'

      And it seemed like Gill Kilner thought your information was incorrect so sought to supply you with a more correct version of events. Is it therefore now her fault that you keep coming back to the subject and cannot let it lie?

      Delete
    21. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 14:44

      'And it seemed like Gill Kilner thought your information was incorrect so sought to supply you with a more correct version of events.'

      She did not seek to supply me with a more correct version of events; nor did I ask her to do so. In fact she specifically said that she had no intention of doing so.

      Delete
    22. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:46

      'She did not seek to supply me with a more correct version of events; nor did I ask her to do so. In fact she specifically said that she had no intention of doing so.'

      I see. Well, no doubt she will be along to speak for herself if she hears about this and cares enough about your views on the matter.

      Delete
    23. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 15:01

      "She did not seek to supply me with a more correct version of events; nor did I ask her to do so."

      "perhaps you would like to tell us the real reason that social services were investigating her family."

      Cognitive dissonance. Definitely

      Delete
    24. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 15:08

      '"She did not seek to supply me with a more correct version of events; nor did I ask her to do so."

      "perhaps you would like to tell us the real reason that social services were investigating her family."

      Cognitive dissonance. Definitely'

      Oh, well spotted Anonymous! So it is.

      Delete
    25. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 15:32

      'Cognitive dissonance. Definitely'

      He certainly demonstrates it in his views on autonomous learning. I wonder how much of it a person can stand.

      Delete
    26. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 21:37

      'Cognitive dissonance. Definitely'

      Come on, guys! Surely one of you at least will allow me to tick the final square in my bingo card, by suggesting that I am on the spectrum?

      Delete
    27. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 03:31

      We are all on the spectrum Simon. It is one's position on the spectrum that matters.

      Delete
    28. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 11:59

      Now, a person with integrity would have answered "Oh yes, I can see I am mistaken - I did in fact ask for more information about this family. I apologise for my error" Whereas Simon merely attempts a misdirection.

      Delete
  19. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 13:55

    I think your usage of *skipped the country* was to smear. you will probably deny this but the casual reader will probably get what you were insinuating.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 14:01

      'I think your usage of *skipped the country* was to smear. you will probably deny this but the casual reader will probably get what you were insinuating.'

      The woman herself said that she left the country in a hurry to avoid a court case. When people leave the country in a hurry, in order not to become embroiled in legal proceedings, I think that skipping the country is a perfectly acceptable expression to describe the thing.

      Delete
  20. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:12

    The idiom is not neutral, it is slanted and implies wrong doing. This is not consistent with objective reporting of facts and is consistent with an intent to smear.

    skip town/skip the country
    informal to leave a place suddenly and secretly, especially to avoid being punished or paying debts:

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 14:20

      'This is not consistent with objective reporting of facts '

      Oh gosh, you really would expect a higher standard than that from the BBC! Oh, wait a minute! I got a bit muddled up there. This is not a news channel, but rather a personal blog. It consists entirely of my views and opinions about various topics. I have never in my life heard of a blog which was no more than an, 'objective reporting of facts'. Those seeking such a thing do not generally look for it in an obscure blog!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:23

      So, an admission that it was your intention to smear the lady in question with your use of a slanted idiom. The honesty is refreshing at least!

      Delete
    3. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 14:26

      'So, an admission that it was your intention to smear the lady in question with your use of a slanted idiom. The honesty is refreshing at least!'

      Indeed no, nothing of the kind! I was merely pointed out that if you are looking for only objective reporting of facts, then a personal blog is perhaps not the best place to find them.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:34

      By your own admission, this blog does not deal with reality but with your own views. Your view, as betrayed by your choice of idiom, is that the person in question was engaged in wrong doing. Unfortunately, your view is not consistent with objective reality, therefore your use of the idiom constitutes a smear.

      Delete
    5. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 14:42

      'By your own admission, this blog does not deal with reality but with your own views. Your view, as betrayed by your choice of idiom, is that the person in question was engaged in wrong doing. '

      I have not the least idea if the person in question was engaged in wrongdoing. I said that social services were investigating her and that she left the country in a hurry, in order to escape their attentions. That at least is what she says herself. Whether they were justified in investigating her, I have not the faintest idea.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:48

      You said she "skipped the country". Are you even aware of the extent to which you self-edit?

      Delete
    7. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 21:38

      'Are you even aware of the extent to which you self-edit?'

      Aware, you mean, that to avoid monotony I vary the phrases and wording of what I am saying? Yes, I think it fair to say that I am.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 09:24

      No that is not what was meant. Your reporting of your own comments is quite often at variance with the original comment. You paraphrase yourself to remove inferences and connotations that people have called you out on. I just wondered if you were doing that with awareness (i.e. trying to mislead your readers deliberately) or without awareness (i.e. deluding yourself)

      Delete
    9. Simon Webb26 November 2013 at 10:11

      'I just wondered if you were doing that with awareness (i.e. trying to mislead your readers deliberately) or without awareness (i.e. deluding yourself)'

      A classic example of begging the question. This is the, 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' kind of thing.

      Delete
    10. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 10:54

      A classic example of not answering the question...

      Delete
    11. Simon Webb26 November 2013 at 11:07

      'A classic example of not answering the question...'

      Well you see, I was neither deluding myself nor trying to mislead my readers. Since those were the only two options being offered, I could not conscientiously choose either. You do know what begging the question is, don't you?

      Delete
    12. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 11:32

      Are you aware that you self edit (paraphrase yourself to remove inferences and connotations that people have called you out on.) or are you not aware?

      Delete
    13. Simon Webb26 November 2013 at 12:11

      'Are you aware that you self edit (paraphrase yourself to remove inferences and connotations that people have called you out on.) or are you not aware?'

      I am aware that this is being suggested, but am saying that it is not so. Rather than use the same expression over and over again, I tend to ring the changes a bit. In this particular case, I have said in different places that this woman, 'skipped the country', 'left a couple of steps ahead of social services', left in a hurry' and so on. The meaning is the same; that she was facing legal problems and left rapidly to avoid them. Readers often find it monotonous to read the same phrase over and over again and so it is not a bad idea to put the same idea into various forms. This is a habit of mine and has no reference to my being, as you put it, 'called out'.

      Delete
    14. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 13:29

      So, either deluded or lying then.

      Delete
    15. Simon Webb26 November 2013 at 13:46

      'So, either deluded or lying then.'

      This is, as you will recall, essentially the choice offered in the first place. I'm afraid that you can't really just demand that people choose like this between two options that you select for them. If I ask somebody if he is wicked or mad and he refuses to answer, this does not necessarily mean that he was either of those things and I can hardly criticise him for refusing to choose one or the other. This is called 'begging the question' and it is a way of trying to force people to agree with your own unfavourable estimations of them.

      Delete
    16. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 15:39

      And you are a master of the practice Simon.

      Delete
    17. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 15:47

      Lol, logical thinking never was your strong point was it? You claim you do not paraphrase yourself to edit connotations and implications you have been called out on. Quite clearly your claim is objectively false. There are therefore only two possible explanations - either you do not know that you do this (delusion) or you know but chose to deny it (lies).

      Delete
    18. Simon Webb26 November 2013 at 21:47

      'Quite clearly your claim is objectively false. '

      Always be alert in a debate to the point at which somebody claims that something is obviously or self-evidently true. This is usually done to introduce the weakest part of the argument! We see Anonymous using this tactic here. By making the bold statement that this is, 'Quite clearly you claim' and then going on state that it is, 'obviously false', one is invited to regard the debate as over. It is not. This is really no more than what we call, 'bare assertion'; a very poor substitute for reasoned argument!

      Other expressions to watch out for, which perform a similar function, are; 'There can be no doubt', 'it is blindingly obvious', 'nobody could argue with the assertion' and 'We can all agree'.

      We have so far in this debate see begging the question and bare assertion being used. Perhaps readers would like to lay odds among themselves as to which dodgy debating tactic we are next likely to seen? I have my own suspicions, but had better not say, lest it become a self-fulfilling prophecy!

      Delete
    19. Anonymous27 November 2013 at 06:49

      Simon wrote:
      "This is really no more than what we call, 'bare assertion'; a very poor substitute for reasoned argument! Other expressions to watch out for, which perform a similar function, are..."

      Perhaps we should add to Simon's list:

      "the only possible construction which can be put upon those words"

      Now, I wonder where I've seen that recently?

      Delete
  21. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:22

    I am curious to discover whether Simon is familiar with the book "Folk Devils and Moral Panics". It is an interesting account of how events were "spun" and misrepresented in order to manipulate public reaction. This is precisely how tabloid "journalism" functions. Simon writes his blog in the same manner using the same techniques. Perhaps a deep reading of the book would enable him to gain some insight into why people frequently make the same complaints about his writing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 14:28

      'Perhaps a deep reading of the book '

      Perfectly familiar with it, but you could equally well apply it to some of the myths which are current among home educators!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:36

      ...or to the reporting of rare but sensational events in such a way as to stir up a moral panic about the safety and well being of home educated children...

      Delete
    3. Simon Webb25 November 2013 at 14:39

      'r to the reporting of rare but sensational events in such a way as to stir up a moral panic about the safety and well being of home educated children...'

      or indeed doing precisely the same about rare but sensational events in schools. There are several forums and lists which report cases of paedophiles in nurseries as though this is common. The intention is to show how dangerous nurseries are for children. This sort of thing s all described in the book which you recommend.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 14:47

      Except... it's not that rare...paedophiles getting jobs in the public sector where they have access to children. More of a no brainer for a paedophile i should think

      Delete
  22. Anonymous25 November 2013 at 23:25

    ''Open Letter to GS

    We don't like you.
    We don't like your smelly APPG.
    She's not in our gang so we don't like her.
    I'm telling on you.
    You smell.
    No one else likes you, either.
    Goodbye.''

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Simon Webb26 November 2013 at 09:05

      '''Open Letter to GS

      We don't like you.
      We don't like your smelly APPG.
      She's not in our gang so we don't like her.
      I'm telling on you.
      You smell.
      No one else likes you, either.
      Goodbye.'''

      Yes, one has to wonder whether or not Graham Stuart will fell it worthwhile to answer this letter!

      Delete
    2. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 09:17

      Wow, the contrast between this and Lisa's letter couldn't be more stark. Considering that the author of the above has self elected herself to represent the home education community to our lords and masters it is really rather disturbing.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 09:21

      Well if he does not answer such a well written and respectful letter, which expresses the concerns of so many of us so well, it will speak volumes.

      Delete
    4. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 09:29

      The above sounds like sour grapes to me. The author forgot to stick out her tongue and shout nananana.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 09:29

      Ooops, the author of the smelly letter above i meant!

      Delete
    6. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 09:33

      One doesn't have to wonder if Graham Stuart will find it worthwhile to reply - of course he won't find it worthwhile! Any more than the Secretariat support found it worthwhile to reply to Lisa. It's very inconvenient when people expect those who represent them to be accountable to them. Such a quaint old fashioned notion deserves all the contempt it gets.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 09:36

      "Yes, one has to wonder whether or not Graham Stuart will fell it worthwhile to answer this letter!"

      OMG you don't mean someone has actually sent the smelly letter to GS...??!!

      Delete
    8. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 10:23

      Did Simon or one of his sock puppets write the smelly letter? Perhaps the original post failed to stir up the contention he craved....?

      Delete
  23. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 01:09

    Don't you have some plotting to attend to?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 01:13

      I did not know she felt this way. It explains a lot.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous26 November 2013 at 09:05

      Yes indeed. I truly hope she will be able to really resolve these issues. Repetition Compulsion is deeply sad to observe and obviously has the potential to damage other people when they become unwitting players in or recipients of repetition events as in the case of the APPG

      Delete
  24. Anonymous27 November 2013 at 23:51

    So, has there been an answer yet?

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)