Showing posts with label 'children's commissioner'. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 'children's commissioner'. Show all posts
Tuesday, 18 May 2010
Becta and 11 million to go?
Could it mean the end for the Bad Man and Two Words Maggie? Government puts work of children's sector bodies on hold
Saturday, 31 October 2009
Khyra Ishaq a tool in the government’s campaign to oppress children and families.
There is much fear amongst home educators that despite a record 5342 responses to the consultation on registration and monitoring of home educators the government will slip something into legislation that will bring the changes it wants to see into law without them going through due process and without the consultation responses being analysed and taken into account. Government has already sneaked past a dozing parliament major changes to the right of entry to our homes that give the LA and others the power invade homes and seize assets if it suspects citizens of minor misdemeanours. Power to enter our homes without a warrant in a way the police cannot.
If proof were needed that this is a very real danger long before the consultation closed the government had a clause about registration and monitoring for EHE in the Improving Schools and Safeguarding Children Bill.
Plans were hatching back in January when the following exchange took place involving Ed Balls, Maggie Atkinson and the ‘completely independent’ Graham Badman, an expert in Elective Home Education because of his many years of dedicated service to Children’s services, the very people clamouring for entry to our homes and access to our children as a right.
‘On Friday January 16th 2009 the joint president of the Association of Directors of Children's Services wrote about
"a 24-hour session with the Department for Children, Schools and Families and partners about the Children's Plan. Ed Balls introduces. The event is excellent with a great sense of opportunity and shared commitment. My co-president John Freeman and directors Maggie Atkinson and Graham Badman fly the ADCS flag."
DCSF launched the Badman Review of Home Education on January 19th.'
Apart from my vehement philosophical and moral objections to the government enacting laws that make it the parent of first resort I have very real pragmatic concerns which the Adam Smith institute shares.
‘The government is practically teaching children that they need to be protected from their parents. If public-run institutions are any indication of how well things turn out under government control, then I’m afraid families don’t stand a chance.'
We are living in peculiar: times
We know that politicians are not known for their honesty in fact the profession rather like that of estate agent is somewhat renowned for it’s lack of it but even the most cynical amongst us have been shocked by the extent to which so many dishonest politicians have been seen to be cheating the taxpayer and setting up rules to enable them to pay themselves more without the public realising it. They now whine ‘please miss it wasn’t my fault they said I could do it’ and expect to be forgiven. Let us not forget that the very system was set up as a means to deceive us!
This government in its mad dog days has been setting up more and more improbable and improper legislation, vetting and barring and useless crb checks give parents a false sense of security when they leave their precious children with strangers but parents themselves are deemed unsafe to be around children.
Then there is the drugs fiasco proving that this government have no time for evidence based policy, they much prefer to make it up to comply with prejudiced and ill informed attitudes. Well they do not do this in my name, like many others I do not want my children manipulated by government as if they were too stupid to assess the information for themselves.
So this stupid, any economist would know that a financial incentive creates a moral hazard, dishonest, refusing perfectly reasonable Fois because the truth may make people who have been vilified and harassed even more angry, and sinister government has gone too far.
It cares not about the false positives that will arise from the screening of innocent families for child abuse and the harm this will do to them, it is on a positive campaign to remove our civil rights and reverse the principal of innocent until proven guilty. It does not care about the harm done to innocent children by the harassment of perfectly well functioning families in its no holds barred campaign for total control.
It cares nothing for the waste of money the country hasn’t got even though social services are thoroughly underfunded and understaffed and cannot meet their obligations to children known to be in danger.
Children like Khyra Ishaq, from a family reported to social services while the children were still at school, out of school and therefore a child missing education for many weeks before she was deregistered. A child where there was more reason than most for social services to insist on entry to the house and access to the child on her own; powers they already have in circumstances like this, but powers they didn’t bother to use and so this child is dead. But do the Government and the Directors of Children’s Services hold their heads in shame and say mea culpa, we will make enormous efforts to make sure nothing like this happens through our carelessness again?
No. They say ooh goodie this is an opportunity to get some control of those pesky home educators; look the child was home educated for ten weeks. We can use this to deliver that shopping list of powers we have been after for almost ever. No one will object; we can pretend that if we had had these powers we could have saved little Khyra, who could argue with that. We can lie about these dead children, the NSPCC’s Vijay Patel will help and Maggie Atkinson, the children’s commissioner elect, she will lie for us after all she wants the job. And the period of Kyra’s trial will be a time when lies may abound in our lazy media and opportunities may be created for pushing through draconian legislation due to the moral panic created.
And evidence of this shopping list from Las is here from Lancashire and Derbyshire.
One of the many hysterically ridiculous points here is the idea of Las planning to implement a conciliation service before parents can remove their children to HE. This clearly shows how little they know of what goes on as many parents plead, beg and try to coerce schools to meet their obligations to their children for years before giving up and realising that it would take some effort to do a worse job themselves. These arrogant and ignorant LAs should have stepped in long before if they wanted to stop the total breakdown of such relationships. I tried to liaise with my LA years ago about my one of my kids, guess what, total waste of time and I expect most parents have found the same. How many parents have had to go to tribunal to make Las meet their obligations to children with special needs, a process that eats up a year of your time to say nothing of the stress involved? This is not about helping kids, they really couldn’t give a damn, it is about protecting their own backs and maintaining control of the peasants. Well I don’t work for them so they can bugger off!
Don’t forget to give your guy that extra special expert touch on Guy Fawkes Night this year!
If proof were needed that this is a very real danger long before the consultation closed the government had a clause about registration and monitoring for EHE in the Improving Schools and Safeguarding Children Bill.
Plans were hatching back in January when the following exchange took place involving Ed Balls, Maggie Atkinson and the ‘completely independent’ Graham Badman, an expert in Elective Home Education because of his many years of dedicated service to Children’s services, the very people clamouring for entry to our homes and access to our children as a right.
‘On Friday January 16th 2009 the joint president of the Association of Directors of Children's Services wrote about
"a 24-hour session with the Department for Children, Schools and Families and partners about the Children's Plan. Ed Balls introduces. The event is excellent with a great sense of opportunity and shared commitment. My co-president John Freeman and directors Maggie Atkinson and Graham Badman fly the ADCS flag."
DCSF launched the Badman Review of Home Education on January 19th.'
Apart from my vehement philosophical and moral objections to the government enacting laws that make it the parent of first resort I have very real pragmatic concerns which the Adam Smith institute shares.
‘The government is practically teaching children that they need to be protected from their parents. If public-run institutions are any indication of how well things turn out under government control, then I’m afraid families don’t stand a chance.'
We are living in peculiar: times
We know that politicians are not known for their honesty in fact the profession rather like that of estate agent is somewhat renowned for it’s lack of it but even the most cynical amongst us have been shocked by the extent to which so many dishonest politicians have been seen to be cheating the taxpayer and setting up rules to enable them to pay themselves more without the public realising it. They now whine ‘please miss it wasn’t my fault they said I could do it’ and expect to be forgiven. Let us not forget that the very system was set up as a means to deceive us!
This government in its mad dog days has been setting up more and more improbable and improper legislation, vetting and barring and useless crb checks give parents a false sense of security when they leave their precious children with strangers but parents themselves are deemed unsafe to be around children.
Then there is the drugs fiasco proving that this government have no time for evidence based policy, they much prefer to make it up to comply with prejudiced and ill informed attitudes. Well they do not do this in my name, like many others I do not want my children manipulated by government as if they were too stupid to assess the information for themselves.
So this stupid, any economist would know that a financial incentive creates a moral hazard, dishonest, refusing perfectly reasonable Fois because the truth may make people who have been vilified and harassed even more angry, and sinister government has gone too far.
It cares not about the false positives that will arise from the screening of innocent families for child abuse and the harm this will do to them, it is on a positive campaign to remove our civil rights and reverse the principal of innocent until proven guilty. It does not care about the harm done to innocent children by the harassment of perfectly well functioning families in its no holds barred campaign for total control.
It cares nothing for the waste of money the country hasn’t got even though social services are thoroughly underfunded and understaffed and cannot meet their obligations to children known to be in danger.
Children like Khyra Ishaq, from a family reported to social services while the children were still at school, out of school and therefore a child missing education for many weeks before she was deregistered. A child where there was more reason than most for social services to insist on entry to the house and access to the child on her own; powers they already have in circumstances like this, but powers they didn’t bother to use and so this child is dead. But do the Government and the Directors of Children’s Services hold their heads in shame and say mea culpa, we will make enormous efforts to make sure nothing like this happens through our carelessness again?
No. They say ooh goodie this is an opportunity to get some control of those pesky home educators; look the child was home educated for ten weeks. We can use this to deliver that shopping list of powers we have been after for almost ever. No one will object; we can pretend that if we had had these powers we could have saved little Khyra, who could argue with that. We can lie about these dead children, the NSPCC’s Vijay Patel will help and Maggie Atkinson, the children’s commissioner elect, she will lie for us after all she wants the job. And the period of Kyra’s trial will be a time when lies may abound in our lazy media and opportunities may be created for pushing through draconian legislation due to the moral panic created.
And evidence of this shopping list from Las is here from Lancashire and Derbyshire.
One of the many hysterically ridiculous points here is the idea of Las planning to implement a conciliation service before parents can remove their children to HE. This clearly shows how little they know of what goes on as many parents plead, beg and try to coerce schools to meet their obligations to their children for years before giving up and realising that it would take some effort to do a worse job themselves. These arrogant and ignorant LAs should have stepped in long before if they wanted to stop the total breakdown of such relationships. I tried to liaise with my LA years ago about my one of my kids, guess what, total waste of time and I expect most parents have found the same. How many parents have had to go to tribunal to make Las meet their obligations to children with special needs, a process that eats up a year of your time to say nothing of the stress involved? This is not about helping kids, they really couldn’t give a damn, it is about protecting their own backs and maintaining control of the peasants. Well I don’t work for them so they can bugger off!
Don’t forget to give your guy that extra special expert touch on Guy Fawkes Night this year!
Wednesday, 28 October 2009
Is this the Level of Courtesy Children can Expect when they contact Maggie Atkinson in her role as Children's Commissioner?
She certainly didn't show any to this home educating parent who's email to her and reply from her are copied below.
She seems unconcerned by her own ignorance of the law around education, has no respect for the general public and feels no need to be in anyway answerable to the ordinary citizen.
This woman is already a Group Director Learning and Children and Director of Children's Services, but she seems to be under an illusion that she is not an employee of the public but is answerable only to her political sponsor bully boy Balls and her own career path.
Her email and address might make you consider sharing your opinion and feelings about her, don't let me stop you.
From: M Atkinson [mailto:MAtkinson@Gateshead.Gov.UK
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:30 PM
To: Anita Dowson
Cc: Mike Fortune Wood
Subject: RE: Home Education - Select committee interview
Thankyou for this message. As I do not take up the post of Children's Commissioner until 1st March 2010 having formally been confirmed in the appointment last week, I have referred this commentary and your offer of a meeting to staff at 11 Milion for reference and any action. I note, but have no intention of responding now or in future to, your commentary on either your dismay, or what in your personal opinion are my shortcomings.
Anita please send this email chain in fulll to 11 Million, for their advice as to whether such a meeting falls within the remit, and any subsequent action.
Many thanks
Dr. Maggie Atkinson
Group Director Learning and Children and Director of Children's Services
Gateshead Council
Civic Centre
Regent Street
Gateshead
NE8 1HH
tel: 0191 433 2700
fax: 0191 478 3875
From: Mike Fortune Wood
Sent: 25 October 2009 08:49
To: Maggie Atkinson
Subject: Home Education - Select committee interview
Dear Ms Atkinson
I have just read some of the evidence offered by your self to the Education select committee regarding your future appointment as children's commissioner. I was particularly interested in your comments regarding home education. You are quoted as saying: "I will take you back, if I may, to when I was an adviser in Birmingham city council, where there were quite large numbers of home-educated children-it is getting on for 20 years now since I worked in Birmingham. At that time, as an adviser I had a right and a duty not only to knock on the doors of people who were choosing electively to educate their children at home, but simply to go into their premises and, on the most headline of bases, to look at whether the environment was right, whether there were age-appropriate materials in use, and whether the children seemed okay. They were never interviewed on their own, they were never taken on one side, they were never taken away from their parents and there was never any really intrusive work that I did as an adviser from Birmingham city council. I felt it was entirely appropriate, and it was within the bounds of reason. In the last two to three years, the regulations are such that I can go no further than the doorstep. I have absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of families who choose electively to educate their children at home are doing so for entirely right reasons, for entirely honourable, fair, just, creative and admirable reasons. But I would give you two words, and they are the first and second names of the child who died-Khyra Ishaq. I do not think that it is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut simply to be able to go across the doorstep of the home where a child is being electively home educated. Not to interfere, not to insist, not to direct, but simply to check that they are as safe as you need them to be. Khyra Ishaq was electively home educated and withdrawn from the roll of her school in Birmingham, and within 10 weeks she had starved to death. That may be an extreme case, and horrible and dreadful, and it happens very, very, very rarely indeed. None the less, it happened."
I would like to highlight several issues with respect to this comment.
1) The law WRT home education has not changed since 1996 when parents no longer needed permission to withdraw their children from school. It has in fact never been the case that an inspector had the right to doorstep parents, gain entry to the home or sight of the child without good cause any more than the authorities have a right of access to the home for children between the ages of 0-5 years (other than one visit following a birth). (This is a misunderstanding, they must offer but cannot insist) my words.
Good cause being that there is evidence or good reason to believe that a child or vulnerable person was in immediate risk of significant harm.
There has never been any statutory guidance on this subject. Such guidance as there has been was simply guidance.
It may be a surprise to you but quite often it is the children themselves who refuse to see or have contact with officials from education departments. Frequently children leave the school system traumatised by the experience and for them to be perused into their own home by the self same people who failed to protect them in school from bullying or stress is as unacceptable to the children as it is to the parents.
2) Khyra Ishaq was known by social services who had prior concerns about the child and the family. They therefore had due cause and good reason to require sight of the child and therefore they had a right of access to the child. It is clear from reports on this child's death that it had nothing whatsoever to do with home education and was everything to do with failures in Birmingham social services department.
Your attempt to blame home educators for the death of this unfortunate child has been seen by home educators as a blatant attack on the rights of families to bring up their children in their own way and does not bode well for the future of home educators or their children should you eventually take up post as children's commissioner.
I am frankly dismayed that as head of children's services in a large department and a prospective candidate to the post of children's commissioner you are unaware of the current legal situation concerning home education as a consequence of which you misled members of a committee about to consider the issue of home education.
I am certain that members of the home education community would be willing to meet with you to assist you in understanding our concerns regarding the Badman review and its recommendations.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Best wishes
Mike Fortune Wood
The term I like best for the quality of Maggie Atkinson's reply is snotogram a term used by a poster to one of the HE lists.
She seems unconcerned by her own ignorance of the law around education, has no respect for the general public and feels no need to be in anyway answerable to the ordinary citizen.
This woman is already a Group Director Learning and Children and Director of Children's Services, but she seems to be under an illusion that she is not an employee of the public but is answerable only to her political sponsor bully boy Balls and her own career path.
Her email and address might make you consider sharing your opinion and feelings about her, don't let me stop you.
From: M Atkinson [mailto:MAtkinson@Gateshead.Gov.UK
Sent: Monday, October 26, 2009 1:30 PM
To: Anita Dowson
Cc: Mike Fortune Wood
Subject: RE: Home Education - Select committee interview
Thankyou for this message. As I do not take up the post of Children's Commissioner until 1st March 2010 having formally been confirmed in the appointment last week, I have referred this commentary and your offer of a meeting to staff at 11 Milion for reference and any action. I note, but have no intention of responding now or in future to, your commentary on either your dismay, or what in your personal opinion are my shortcomings.
Anita please send this email chain in fulll to 11 Million, for their advice as to whether such a meeting falls within the remit, and any subsequent action.
Many thanks
Dr. Maggie Atkinson
Group Director Learning and Children and Director of Children's Services
Gateshead Council
Civic Centre
Regent Street
Gateshead
NE8 1HH
tel: 0191 433 2700
fax: 0191 478 3875
From: Mike Fortune Wood
Sent: 25 October 2009 08:49
To: Maggie Atkinson
Subject: Home Education - Select committee interview
Dear Ms Atkinson
I have just read some of the evidence offered by your self to the Education select committee regarding your future appointment as children's commissioner. I was particularly interested in your comments regarding home education. You are quoted as saying: "I will take you back, if I may, to when I was an adviser in Birmingham city council, where there were quite large numbers of home-educated children-it is getting on for 20 years now since I worked in Birmingham. At that time, as an adviser I had a right and a duty not only to knock on the doors of people who were choosing electively to educate their children at home, but simply to go into their premises and, on the most headline of bases, to look at whether the environment was right, whether there were age-appropriate materials in use, and whether the children seemed okay. They were never interviewed on their own, they were never taken on one side, they were never taken away from their parents and there was never any really intrusive work that I did as an adviser from Birmingham city council. I felt it was entirely appropriate, and it was within the bounds of reason. In the last two to three years, the regulations are such that I can go no further than the doorstep. I have absolutely no doubt that the vast majority of families who choose electively to educate their children at home are doing so for entirely right reasons, for entirely honourable, fair, just, creative and admirable reasons. But I would give you two words, and they are the first and second names of the child who died-Khyra Ishaq. I do not think that it is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut simply to be able to go across the doorstep of the home where a child is being electively home educated. Not to interfere, not to insist, not to direct, but simply to check that they are as safe as you need them to be. Khyra Ishaq was electively home educated and withdrawn from the roll of her school in Birmingham, and within 10 weeks she had starved to death. That may be an extreme case, and horrible and dreadful, and it happens very, very, very rarely indeed. None the less, it happened."
I would like to highlight several issues with respect to this comment.
1) The law WRT home education has not changed since 1996 when parents no longer needed permission to withdraw their children from school. It has in fact never been the case that an inspector had the right to doorstep parents, gain entry to the home or sight of the child without good cause any more than the authorities have a right of access to the home for children between the ages of 0-5 years (other than one visit following a birth). (This is a misunderstanding, they must offer but cannot insist) my words.
Good cause being that there is evidence or good reason to believe that a child or vulnerable person was in immediate risk of significant harm.
There has never been any statutory guidance on this subject. Such guidance as there has been was simply guidance.
It may be a surprise to you but quite often it is the children themselves who refuse to see or have contact with officials from education departments. Frequently children leave the school system traumatised by the experience and for them to be perused into their own home by the self same people who failed to protect them in school from bullying or stress is as unacceptable to the children as it is to the parents.
2) Khyra Ishaq was known by social services who had prior concerns about the child and the family. They therefore had due cause and good reason to require sight of the child and therefore they had a right of access to the child. It is clear from reports on this child's death that it had nothing whatsoever to do with home education and was everything to do with failures in Birmingham social services department.
Your attempt to blame home educators for the death of this unfortunate child has been seen by home educators as a blatant attack on the rights of families to bring up their children in their own way and does not bode well for the future of home educators or their children should you eventually take up post as children's commissioner.
I am frankly dismayed that as head of children's services in a large department and a prospective candidate to the post of children's commissioner you are unaware of the current legal situation concerning home education as a consequence of which you misled members of a committee about to consider the issue of home education.
I am certain that members of the home education community would be willing to meet with you to assist you in understanding our concerns regarding the Badman review and its recommendations.
Looking forward to hearing from you,
Best wishes
Mike Fortune Wood
The term I like best for the quality of Maggie Atkinson's reply is snotogram a term used by a poster to one of the HE lists.
Sunday, 25 October 2009
Maggie Atkinson Children’s Commissioner Elect, ignorant or dishonest?
Two word Maggie showed no respect for Khyra Ishaq’s memory when she used her name as a tool to slur home educators, thus lying or showing her ignorance in front of the DCSF Select Committee. They were not deceived and rejected her as a candidate, though much good may it do us with bully boys like Balls in charge.
'Who are you covering for Maggie? Is one of your mates in charge of Birmingham? Or did Ed ask you to trot out those tired lies?' asks Jax, as she pleads for journalists who will actually investigate and report news.
Carlotta after reading her evidence to the committee concludes 'Dr. Atkinson demonstrates by the above evidence that she is either ignorant of the known facts of the matters at hand, or she is quite prepared to fudge the facts in order to further her objectives. Either way, it doesn't bode well.'
'Who are you covering for Maggie? Is one of your mates in charge of Birmingham? Or did Ed ask you to trot out those tired lies?' asks Jax, as she pleads for journalists who will actually investigate and report news.
Carlotta after reading her evidence to the committee concludes 'Dr. Atkinson demonstrates by the above evidence that she is either ignorant of the known facts of the matters at hand, or she is quite prepared to fudge the facts in order to further her objectives. Either way, it doesn't bode well.'
'Here we are Maggie some more reading material you obviously need educating This is about the Doctor the school brought in because of their concerns over one of Khyra's brothers . Note that the children were at SCHOOL and the school did raise concerns but the agencies who could have stepped in FAILED to do so.' Elaine attempts to educate her here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)