Tuesday, January 12, 2010

And yet more on the Rubbish that Ed Balls Spouts

Now there couldn't be any teensy, weensy possible chance that the DCSF intentionally released the Registration and Monitoring Consultation results on the same day that Home Educators were likely not only to be digging themselves out of snow drifts, but were also distracted by the second reading of the Children, Schools and Families Bill, now could there? I mean is there any possible chance that a man with the integrity of Ed Balls would have wanted to bury the news that 4497 out of 4833 of respondents thought that the proposals don't strike the right balance between the rights of parents and children? Nah, surely not.

Perhaps, (well, let's be as kind as we possibly can be) he hadn't actually read the consultation results himself. Yes, yes, that must be it, for otherwise the man must either be classed as a liar or seriously delusional for yesterday he said (see second para under column 436):

"In the vast majority of cases, home-educating parents will want to co-operate fully - this will be very light touch indeed"

The thing is, Ed, the truth does have a habit of outing itself. 4217 respondents who we can safely assume were mostly home educators thought that local authorities shouldn't have the right to visit the family home to interview the child within four weeks of HE starting, after six months have elapsed, at the anniversary of HE starting and thereafter on an annual basis. Only 311 respondents out of 4717 actually did think it a good idea, and you can bet your life, most of these weren't home educators. I think I know one home educator out of literally hundreds who thinks your plans have some (and even this person equivocates on many points), merit. The hundreds of other home educators I know are firmly of the considered opinion that you proposals are appalling in any number of different ways. So either you are neglectful in not understanding this is so, Ed, or you are lying, or you are delusional.

Whatever the explanation, this man shouldn't be in office.

UPDATE: The Guardian has further evidence that Ed has lost the plot.

15 comments:

mum6kids said...

Not only does Balls lie, as does Badman, but they both do it as though they really think none of would notice. That Flynn bloke dismissed us all as using a gimmick to protest. We are just the great unwashed to them. Such arrogance!
I'm am getting the horrible feeling we are loosing this fight. Caught myself yesterday wondering if it was time to hide the Bibles and RE stuff and only keep out the stuff that looks National Curriculum ish. Silly thoughts...but then..
Surely we can get some kind of promise from the Tories that they would never fund this malarky, especially is finally some LibDems are beginning to notice how bad this is.
I too wish the Libertarians had a stronger voice.

Anonymous said...

All of them lie not just Balls the tories would be the same! Gove would be no different once in power it be the same.Did you see how few M.ps where in chamber? i say lets get on with it Peter has already faced balls DCSF down so come on Balls lets do it!

Barry said...

The thing is, Mum6kids, I would say any sensible interpretation of the case would conclude we have won the argument as we have trashed most of their stats, overwhelmingly objected to their intrusions, and they have lied, bullied, ignored all the way. The problem is they are in power, and if that isn't an argument for a weaker state / no state then I don't know what is!

Anonymous said...

We can always go for judicial review since the whole thing is based on prejudice and dodgy statistics, in other words, maladministration.

The other thing is that Labour is determined to bring this parc in for the new government to inherit. The new government will be constrained by lack of cash.

If the Labour MPs (most of them) weren't such ignorant, selfish, uncaring pigs, this wouldn't have happened.

Off to read Old Holborn now.

Anonymous said...

I am so sorry to read this post; you behave as if the consultation results actually mattered to anyone in government. They no more care about them than they do about you, and for you to suggest that the snow has anything to do with the timing of the release is simply farcical.

Their minds were already made up; the consultation was nothing more than a procedural sham. The legislation was drafted before they read the consultation responses.

Your record breaking petitions were worthless. Your visits to MPs a total waste of time. Your anointing of a 'Hom Ed Hero' in the form of the weasel Ralph Lucas a shameful act worthy of a lowly serf.

You are now faced with a stark choice; are you going to give up your children to Ed Balls or his sucessor, or are you going to keep them safe and retain control over their education?

This was aways the choice, from the moment the Badman review was published. Sadly, Home Educators are only now coming to the conclusion that this was the only choice all along, and that no matter what they did, said, signed, wrote or who they visited and smiled at, the government was going to legislate them out of existence.

And as for those who think "we are beginning to lose this fight"; just what will it take for you to understand what is going on around you?

This legislation is a gift to the Tories, who will not change a single line of it; they are control freaks in exactly the same way that Labour are. If you put your faith in the Tories you have not learned anything.

If I were you, I would do what Anonymous 12:54 is doing; reading and following Old Holborn. Your only way out is to completely detach yourself from the state, ignore them, stop paying them to enslave you and act like a hunan being.

Carlotta said...

Hi Anon,

I think you may have misread the tone a little. I didn't really think the snow had anything much to do with it. It was more a metaphor for how busy HEors tend to be, on top of having the CSF bill second reading to contend with. And I do think Ed delayed the consult response so that opposition MPs couldn't use it easily in their speeches and his total hypocrisy would be less exposed.

We were very, very well aware that the consultation was a procedural scam and only took part so that Ed Balls couldn't possibly use it to support his appalling arguments and it is nice to be able to expose the lie as we now can.

I think you are probably wrong to assume that the legislation will go through. The size of the opposition to the second reading was immense.

I think you are also wrong to think that we had a choice in the beginning either at all, or that we do no longer have. Lobbying, petitioning, explaining our situation to MPs has helped many of them to understand our pov. Quite a few speakers last night clearly had a complete grasp of our situation.

And what choice are you really proposing? Under the terms of the proposed Bill, if I completely ignore the state, my children will be forceably returned to school, and for at least one of them, this would be completely disastrous. I would be interested to know what practical steps you would take to prevent such a thing happening?

Anonymous said...

They cannot force your child to go to school. That is a myth. Only you can put your child into school, no one can force you to do it.

You need to decide wether or not you are more committed to obeying the law than you are to acting in the best interests of your children. Clearly as a home educator, your children are your number priority, and you are a good parent, therefore, the question is moot the law comes second, after your children's best interests.

If an SAO is issued against you, you will ignore it, and that is that. Long before you get to the stage of an SAO, you should completely sever any communication with your LA, if you are already talking to them in the first place.

Those are the practical steps you need to take and will have to take to protect your family.

I guarantee you that this legislation is not going to be defeated. It is going to pass intact and become law, and the Tories are not going to dismantle it. If they do dismantle any of it, they will leave registration intact, since they all think it is reasonable.

In the end, whatever you do, you are going to be faced with the same choice; obey the state and destroy your children's education or disobey and ignore the SAOs that will inevitably be served on you.

I sense that you are very deeply embedded in the system, and cannot think outside of it; you are not alone in this.

Best of luck with your continued petitioning, lobbying, letter writing and everything else that you have been doing, and I sincerely hope that I am wrong.

Anonymous said...

I think that other anonymous is right about the Tories should it become law i dont belive Gove will desmantle it the tories quite like the idea of a register. we also do not trust weasel lord Lucas as he also wants a register! none of them like home education anonymous is right we should have nothing to do with the LEA where we live just tell the to clear off and just ingore any SAO!

CiaranG said...

I don't think the particular sentence you point out is a lie. i.e.:

"In the vast majority of cases, home-educating parents will want to co-operate fully - this will be very light touch indeed"

You've just misunderstood. When a gun is pointed at them, in the vast majority of cases people "will want" to co-operate fully.

Of course, it's not a gun, it's the courts and social services. And ultimately it's not pointed at the parents, but the children.

Carlotta said...

Hi Ciaran,

Perhaps my take on the verb "to co-operate" is rather limited but to me it usually implies working together in a non-coercive fashion.

I still maintain that Ed meant people to take it that way, in which case it is still a lie, but I take your other point - people will do virtually anything when the right coercive pressure is applied.

Carlotta said...

re ignoring SAOs..am not sure what the procedure will be if the CSF bill is passed. Perhaps penalties for ignoring SAOs will change. At the moment, it could become an expensive business which may well not be an option for many HEOrs. You can be fined up to £1000 per child for ignoring an SAO.

I agree that would be well worth it in our case, and we might well do that if further criminalisation does not ensue, but even if that is as bad as it gets, I would far rather it didn't come to that and so will argue against this ludicrous situation till am blue in the face! I don't think there is anything to lose by so doing, and there may be some gain!

Anonymous said...

If the HE community had sat back and done nothing than the issue would not be on the radar of as many MPs as it is now.

At the end of the day all the lobbying and consultation responses might just be the difference between this legislation going through in the 'washup' on a nod and it being rejected.
If rejected I do not think that the Tories or a minority Labour government would try to push through anything like this in the next parliament.
I also noticed in the debate last night that the Plaid Cymru Mp suggested that nothing like the Badman recommendations would ever get through in Wales, so that would be another safe haven to run to if needed.

Darren

Merry said...

Damn - i thought the title was Ed Balls "sprouts". I read a little girl an excellent book about a smelly old sprout that no one liked or wanted and ended up being eaten by a mouse... i like thinking of ed balls as a smelly old sprout.

;)

Carlotta said...

Thanks so much for that Merry...am almost certain that that image will help me to keep calmer in future! Prolonged anger is probably not a good idea, I suspect!

Carlotta said...

Whoops...am being tested already!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1560057/Taxpayers-foot-bill-for-Ed-Balls-junket.html

Smelly Ed sprout, smelly Ed sprout..