Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Gill's Blog Post

...on this "independent" review.

Ho hum. We will just have to try to ensure that Mr Badman is quite clear that parents, yes PARENTS should be responsible for the education and welfare of their children, that the state only has a duty to intervene where it is clear that parents are failing in their duties, and that the law must respect this balance.

If you haven't done so already, you could be telling him this here.

17 comments:

Gill said...

I suppose, looking at it ultra-optimistically, he could be so sick of 'the system' himself, after all those years, that his secret sympathies actually lie with us..? *Hollow laugh*

Carlotta said...

Just been reading your link to his ECM review...the council making all these positive contributions to keeping children healthy, safe, etc...EEEK...

Your point above could be our only hope!

Gill said...

It'd be career suicide for him, though, to do anything other than report as expected. I wonder if he'd have the courage to do it anyway. If he's a man of real integrity, he'll report as he actually finds.

It will surely be difficult for him to approach it with an open mind though, with a history like that.

And yes, he must certainly be good at hoop-jumping! :-(

Leo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gill said...

Tell us the 'right' way to argue please then Leo - in detail.

Leo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gill said...

Because it might help?

Carlotta said...

Hi L...am wondering if this is a language problem??

I believe I have obligations which are also in practice duties towards my children, whether or not they are prescribed in law.

Is this something to do with the problem you see?

Leo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gill said...

Ah, you just did it. Thanks, Leo :-)

Carlotta obviously understands the mysterious 'how to get something useful out of Leo' code better than I do.

Carlotta said...

"the word duty implies compulsion. A duty is a moral obligation to an authority, absent of self-interest and imposed by force."

Ah right, I see your argument, although I disagree that these are necessary implications of the word duty.

I impose duties upon myself because they are the reasonable thing to do, and therefore I want to do them and I impose them upon myself completely freely. I am my own authority, and some duties I make certain I meet are definitely within my own range of self interest. eg: I owe a duty of care to myself...to eat, go out meet friends etc.

I don't think this is too unusual a use of the word duty, and imagine that others could read it that way.

I wonder if a similar Portuguese word has the stricter connotations you suggest?

Carlotta said...

What would be your preferred line of defence, L?

Adele said...

I would say that a duty is an obligation imposed by one's conscience. It is only "imposed" by moral authority not by the authority of a person or body; it is an act that one considers essential to undertake in order to maintain one's integrity.

Unless you precede the word with another that alters context and meaning eg "legal duty".

Leo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Leo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gill said...

The same as you offer for mine.

Leo said...

You publish yourself for free. Don't expect me to, though.