A final word about HE-UK

I write a personal blog. In this blog, I express my own purely personal opinions in a humorous and seldom entirely serious way; although I do try to take note of and include the opinions of others. That's why I don't operate any moderation, so that others can come here and express their own views if they wish. I also read other blogs and websites in order to keep in touch with things in the field of home education. From time to time, I refer to things which I have read elsewhere. I usually do this in the vaguest way possible; perhaps by saying that 'a mother on one of the home education lists' thinks such and such. A few days ago, I said here;

'On one of the lists lately, a mother has received a questionnaire through the post from her local authority and is determined not to answer any of the questions, even though she tells us that the local authority already know the answers. This surely is sheer bloody-mindedness! Other parents commenting on the list are in agreement with this approach. Indeed, the mother whose child features in the newspaper cited above suggests that not only should the questions not be answered, but that the questionnaire itself should be covered with animal excrement before being returned to the local authority.'

The list is not named and most readers would not have been interested anyway in which particular list I was referring to. I wanted to discuss a particular attitude prevalent among some home educators and this was simply the lead-in to that discussion. As a result of this, people on that list have been describing me as 'an ignorant, lying arsehole' and in other, even less flattering ways. The list owner has said that;

'his intention on targeting this list is to destroy it. he aims to achieve this by ensuring that the normal functioning of the list is disrupted'

This is surely a ludicrous over reaction! At worst, I have been guilty of a breach of etiquette in mentioning the list without seeking permission of those posting there. How this is likely to destroy the list concerned is something of a mystery. I often mention things which I have seen on other lists and sites which I read. Nobody else ever reacts like this; it is only the members of this one particular list. A lot of them seem permanently angry anyway, so I suppose that anything will set them off! It is hardly my fault that they are so easily angered and if they prefer to spend their time writing insulting things about me instead of educating their children, I cannot see that this is my responsibility. I really have not the heart to counter once again point by point all the nonsense that has been appearing on that list about me for the last year and a half, some of which has been rehashed there over the last day or two. I will limit myself to one observation. Julie Garret said yesterday;

' Thats all fine and dandy, until he picks on you and names your child
PERSONNALLY in his blog, without your permission'

I cannot let this pass unremarked. I work with children with special needs and this is a pretty damaging allegation. It is, by the way, always a bad sign when people start using capital letters in this way; it is only a step away from using green ink! I feel that I should point out that I have never named Julie Garett's son either here or anywhere else. I only learned what her son's name was from the newspapers. I regularly look for mention of home education in the press and on the internet. So we find;

http://www.herefordtimes.com/news/education/4848207.Education_at_home_a_growing_trend_in_Herefordshire/


If Julie wishes to prevent others from knowing her son's name, seeing his photograph, finding out the name of the small village where he lives, learning why he was de-registered from school and about his developmental problems, then she would be well advised not to ring up newspapers and publicise his personal information like this. I did not mention her son's name here, let alone pick on either him or his mother, but once you put this sort of thing on the internet yourself, you can hardly then start to claim that your privacy has been infringed.(It was, incidentally, Julie Garrett who suggested that the quesionnaire should be returned to the local authority covered with animal excrement. Pity the local authority officer who has dealings with her and her family; do you suppose that they put correspendence from her through a special decontamination unit?)