Go Back   Home Education Forums > UK Home Education Forums > Home Education Law & Policy > England

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 05-03-09, 10:07
Admin's Avatar
Admin Admin is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Angus
Posts: 6,523
Thanks: 5,357
Thanked 11,508 Times in 4,175 Posts
Default London (Fantasy) Safeguarding Network

The AHEd wiki page on the London Safeguarding Network is a must read for all those concerned with reality rather than fantasy.

Having made allegations about home education being a cover for child abuse (yawn), it turns out that the London Safeguarding Network just made it all up! On being challenged by a home educator, their then chief fantasist, Mary Kuhn, confessed to an AHEd member that
Quote:
...she didn't actually hold any information about specific cases. It was not that she had concerns about confidentiality. She appears to assert that she did not have the details at all. Further, she appears not to have been able to give the names of the professionals who provided her with the information that there were serious child protection issues or who might actually know of the details of these cases. Also any details on this matter are missing from the minutes of the meeting in which they were supposedly mentioned.
Even more concerning is the fact that these fairy tales were not confined to the London Fantasy Network as they proceeded to 'share the hearsay' with other LAs who subsequently repeated them in their own responses to the elective home education guidelines consultation. So we have a situation where
Quote:
...apparently unexamined allegations about serious child protection issues in EHE children, that were initially made by Ms Kuhn in the draft response, could well have been repeated by a large number of individual authorities in their responses. Therefore, if similar statements appear in individual replies from London and other LAs throughout the regions, this doesn't necessarily mean that these LAs were writing from direct experience.
Requests for minutes and details of discussions under the Freedom of Information Act resulted in a 'no can do' (effectively a refusal notice) as they had lost the paperwork. You couldn't make it up - well, actually, they did!

Unsurprisingly, AHEd commentators are more than a bit cheesed off.
Quote:
... the board wrote in an official, professional document, that they are aware of serious cases that caused concern about harm to children comparable to high profile new stories of child abuse and murder and as a result of which they insisted the law should be changed to investigate our families when, in fact, they were not aware of any such cases but had embarked on a search to find some as a result of which, they did not find any cases?
Quite.

And on the subject of the latest pretendy review of elective home education in England, the credibility of which has been completely destroyed by the NSPCC's smear tactics, an AHEd member commented
Quote:
The NSPCC receive 30 million pounds directly from the government for their work with Childline where they receive 2.3 million replies and the best they have been able to come up with is the Eunice Spry case [where the LA failed to act on evidence of abuse] and a line they cut and pasted from the LCNSLN draft response and they are lobbying for the law to change.
So it's just a case of lies, lies and not even any damned statistics!
Bookmark and Share
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-03-09, 10:32
sheilan sheilan is offline
HE
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 87
Thanks: 3
Thanked 59 Times in 26 Posts
Default

Not connected to NSPCC, but have just seen this advertised on SCVO website SCVO Homepage - wonder if there's some useful insights?!

March 12th .... will give a talk on the topic of "Social partnership in practice - how the Irish voluntary sector helps develop government policy". This will be held at the Augustine Church Centre in Edinburgh from 6pm. The lecture is FREE to SCVO members or 15 for non-members.
Bookmark and Share
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to sheilan For This Useful Post:
Admin (05-03-09)
  #3  
Old 05-03-09, 10:52
OrganisedPauper's Avatar
OrganisedPauper OrganisedPauper is offline
HE
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 208
Thanks: 189
Thanked 257 Times in 78 Posts
Default


I firmly believe that this whole review was founded on the disinformation spread by the London Safeguarding Network. This disinformation found its way into so many LAs' (and others) submissions to the Elective Home Education Guidelines Consultation that it made it appear that child abuse was rife in home education.

They picked it up unexamined and ran with it.

It appears to have been a deliberate act by the London Safeguarding network as they reported 'a good cascade effect'. They fomented hysteria.

I said it in my own submission to the Home Education Review in answer to this question.

Some people have expressed concern that home education could be used as a cover for child abuse, forced marriage, domestic servitude or other forms of child neglect. What do you think Government should do to ensure this does not happen?

Some people can say anything can't they. Purple is the new
pink or the sky is falling, it doesn't mean it's true, in fact
there's no evidence of this at all, but the more people say it the more it must be true right? Perhaps the story of Henny Penny is pertinent here, I recommend you read it.

The sky is falling, the sky is falling!

Henny Penny played by the London Safeguarding Board, Cockey Locky by the NSPCC and Goosey Loosey by Nazir Afzal .
Bookmark and Share
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to OrganisedPauper For This Useful Post:
Admin (05-03-09), Crank Parent (05-03-09), HomeEdMum (11-03-09), miss00moo (30-01-13)
  #4  
Old 05-03-09, 13:38
noschool noschool is offline
HE
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 278
Thanks: 62
Thanked 277 Times in 100 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrganisedPauper View Post
It appears to have been a deliberate act by the London Safeguarding network as they reported 'a good cascade effect'. They fomented hysteria.
I bet they did!

I'm not sure that this sort of activity shouldn't be reported to the police as there must surely be a law against it! Surely at the very least MPs should be asking questions about why public money (how much, we wonder?) is being spent on a hugely expensive academic exercise which has been instigated on the basis of invented, and therefore fundamentally flawed, data.

This whole sham review, in which a few token and unrepresentative home education organisations are allowed to express their 'concerns' in a state controlled environment, is profoundly insulting to parents and children, whose human rights appear to be completely dispensable. We don't recognise your terms of reference as legitimate, FULL STOP!!!

As a community of interest, home educators are as appalled as any other group by the abuse, neglect and maltreatment of children in our society; to suggest otherwise is nothing short of wicked. While no one is denying that abuse could potentially take place in a home education setting, since home educators are a cross section of wider society, it most certainly occurs on a regular basis in a school setting. Moreover, teachers, social workers and police officers are disproportionately represented in the 'perpetrator' statistics, despite 'stringent' CRB checks (ref. Operation Ore), but parents are not collectively calling for all such professionals to be subject to unannounced home visits and spot checks of their computers 'just in case'.

Maybe we should be calling for an inquiry, though? Whereas there is no money for frontline services, it seems to be no object when it comes to consultations, reviews, inquiries, reports and recommendations - oh, I nearly forgot, setting up computerised databases to record the personal data of all the children in the country (and their parents/carers).

Bureaucracy pays; the protection of the most vulnerable children doesn't.
__________________
no2school
because every child matters
Bookmark and Share
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
None

Thread Tools





SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2