Showing posts with label 'harassment and vilification'. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 'harassment and vilification'. Show all posts

Monday, 16 July 2012

Local Authorities and Home Education: A Case Study in Bad Behaviour


from Cos I Can

Why I recommend people tell the LA to sod off.



I sent a lovely deregistration letter into the school,  saying how pleased I had been with certain teachers.  I didn't slag the school off even though some teachers had made life difficult for Mathew, because they refused to acknowledge his needs and differences.  I was hoping to leave things on a positive, even though things had been awful for my son.  I didn't get a response, instead I was ignored. This took me by surprise but I wasn't too bothered by it.
Unfortunately I caught a sickness bug not long after deregistering them, I stupidly answered the phone, in between bouts of throwing up, the woman waffled out her name so fast and didn't explain who she was, all I know is that she was something to do with home education and wanted to come and see us, I asked that she call me back another day because I was ill. She agreed, eventually, after trying to push me for a date, I threw up and hung up the phone.
I didn't hear anything for weeks, assuming she had forgotten.  My dad was visiting one day and we saw a lady walk down the drive carrying a briefcase, I said 'I bet this is the woman', she wasn't!  She apologised for turning up unannounced but was in the area, so thought she would bring me the forms out that I had to fill in. She didn't ask to come in.  At the time I didn't see anything odd about this, although reading the forms that asked about our curriculum and subjects made me aware that they clearly didn't know much about home ed, I also felt the forms didn't look official so therefore not compulsory, so i made hamster bedding with them.  I still to this day have no idea who she was.
I thought that was it, oh how wrong I was!  We had been out to toddler group as we usually did on a Wednesday morning, as we got in, the phone was ringing, I answered and all I heard was
'Where were you? where were you?' being bellowed at me
'excuse me, but who are you?'
'Where were you?'
'If you tell me who you are I will decide if you have any right to know where I was!'
'I'm Mrs B from Doncaster Council, ...' she did say her name and job title but I was flustered by this stage and didn't hear her.
'I came to see you this morning and you didn't answer the door'
'Well I was out as I wasn't expecting visitors'
'You told me to come today'
'I have no idea who you are or that I've ever spoken to you'
'well I rang you and we booked today in'
I finally sussed she was the one that called when I was sick, I explained how we had not made an appointment, but I had told her to ring me back another time.
'Are you calling me a liar' she shouted
'er yeah' I said, ' You called me when I was sick and I asked you to call me back another day'
'well I've got it written in my diary to visit you'
'well I think maybe you made a mistake'
this conversation went on for ages, she was obnoxious, it ended with me asking what she wanted to see me for anyway.
'to discuss whether you need support getting your child back into school or help sort any issues with school'
'no I don't and don't ever call or write to me, I never want you to contact me again'
I hung up, I was actually shaking, so I sat and took a moment to pull myself together, then I tried to figure out who she was, so I rang the council and explained to the receptionist that I'd like to talk to the manager of the department that deals with children who are deregistered. She put me through to integration and education welfare. I spoke to the manager Mr D, he listened carefully and agreed I should not be spoken to in that manner, but maybe I had made the mistake, (I forgot to add in here that he also tried telling me there was a new law that meant I had to let them in, I later realise he was attempting to pass the Badman shite off as law!) I didn't back down and sent a written complaint in, I received an apology for the 'misunderstanding'.
All went quiet, then one day I had a letter and the same forms as before, the letter basically said I had to have a visit from the Elective Home Education Consultant, it didn't explain my options. The leaflet which was  included,  talked mostly of curriculum's and lessons and keeping records.  Again I didn't fill the forms in, but there was a date in the letter for a meeting at my house, I didn't know I had an option to cancel.
THE LEAFLET
'...it will, however, be the responsibility of the parent to show the Local Authority that the programme of work is helping the child to learn and that the child is making progress.....'
the purpose of the first visit  is to discuss your plane and he quality and range of the curriculum to be offered....'
'evidence would usually include a written programme of work, samples of work, an interview with a parent and a discussion with the child'
'should parents elect not to meet the consultant the evidence of the programme of work and a full range of work samples is of critical importance'
I spent hours cleaning the house and telling the kids to be on best behaviour, I let the EHE in, and she sat there, belittling all my choices, telling me how important it is to push Mathew to write, that Home Ed kids don't have friends, that school is really the best place, that I should push for a diagnosis for Mathew. She was awful.  She sent a report, that stated I should keep the kids work in date order and split into subjects and that it should all be named and dated, she said that whilst the little bit she was allowed to see showed an education was being provided, she expected at the next visit to see a lot more written work.  She also mentioned my 1 year old daughter in the report.  I made a complaint and had the report altered, but they said that this was the EHE's opinion and only she could amend it. But she was on holiday. Once she came back I contacted her, she said that because it had been a while since she visited (2 months) she would need to do another visit because she couldn't remember us, and her notes matched her report. I declined!
A few months later there was a knock at the door, we were all still in pj's and watching a film, breakfast pots still on the table, she was a social worker and demanded I let her in, without going into it too much, she had an allegation that I loved one kid more than the other and that home ed was an issue. She thought home education was illegal, looked around my house, attempted to talk to my kids, who ignored her lol.  She went away telling me she thought that would be the last of it, but then I got a letter saying they wanted to do a core assessment, which would involve weeks of interviews and meetings and discussions with my children, also that they recomended I have another EHE visit, because their last report (less than 6 months previous) was no longer valid.  I fought them and never met with them again, or let them meet the kids again, I also didn't agree to the EHE visits again.  I sent in doctors reports, to show I was looking into a diagnosis for Mathew, I sent a report of all the activities and places we went where adults were in contact with my children, I had people (25 of them) that were in contact with my children and/or knew me well to write character statements, and I kept fighting until they agreed that actually there was no cause for concern. Which they never actually had, their report said no concern except they are not see by a teacher every day. I told them that this was discrimination against home edders who legally choose to educate their children.  The case was dropped. The social worker was shipped off, from what I have heard she was sacked.  The whole thing had been started by 2 family members, that knew little to nothing about me and had decided cos my kids didn't sit to the table to eat, and were allowed to watch tv and eat sweets and of course now didn't go to school that I must have been covering up abuse. Oh and of course that I loved the older one more, cos he sometimes needed a bit more attention because of his ASD and SPD stuff.
 I got to know more about the law, and the home ed  requirements. Well I was fuming to say the least, they had not once said I could send a report or anything other option for that matter. Then I became ill, I needed my gall bladder removing and it was making me really ill and tired. I got a letter (8 months after initial visit) asking for another visit, I replied saying I would provide them with a report in due course, but due to illness that they give me some time. in the space of a month I had 3 phone calls and 2 letters demanding my report, by this stage I was even more ill.  I sent an email saying it had not been a year since their visit and I would write to them before then.
Then I was admitted into hospital, I spent 2 weeks being admitted, always being told I was next on the list for the op, to find someone else was rushed in in front of me, I kept coming home and back again the next day. I had 2 missed calls from the EHE (still a month before the year was up)  I answered the call laid in hospital, she was really arsey with me and demanded a report, so I emailed a very short report to them from my hospital bed.
'Dear EHE, I am still happy to be home educating and take my responsibilities to provide a suitable education, seriously.  I provide access to numerous materials, including, books, computers and outings. The children are happy to be home educated and thriving
Regards
Me.' (or something like that)
THE REPORT
'...as no evidence of the children's work was provided it is difficuly to write a more detailed report, or relate the children's individual achievements.
 It said they would contact me in a year. Just over a year later I received a letter that said; 
'I would like to introduce myself as the new consultant for elective home education in Doncaster, .......... I note from our records that you prefer to submit a report outlining the educational provision for.......As it is a year since we last made enquiries, I would be pleased to receive your report by the end of April........'
I replied:
Dear Mrs W,
I am still home educating my children, ensuring it meets their individual needs, aptitudes and abilities. As you are probably aware there is nothing in law that states I have to meet with yourselves nor provide a report and you should only be making enquiries if there is evidence that an education isn't being provided.
I am including the following information just so that you have a little bit of info about our home educating, we follow a semi structured/autonomous style, child led, and child centred.  I make sure they have access to plenty of resources including books and computers, we are actively involved in the home education community.
I now do not expect to hear from you again unless there are concerns.
Regards
ME
I got a thanks for that, email.
Since then, I have met with the LA with other local people, at their offices, to discuss their recent bad behaviour, letters and website. At this meeting it was agreed that we (the home edders) would write drafts for their letters. website and leaflet and that they would be checked over by the EHE and authorised by management. We were promised that they wanted to improve things and that an open meeting would soon be organised for all families and the LA to attend to discuss issues etc.
We spent hours rewriting and discussing these documents, I organised to meet Mrs W at my home to discuss them and hopefully get her to agree to what we wanted.  When she turned up, it was clear that she felt intimidated by me,  but also her boss, who didn't even know she was here.  She went away promising that the letters would be sorted. Also that the open meeting was being sorted.
Then it all went tits up, her boss left unexpectedly to a different role, leaving her not knowing who, what or where.  I'd asked to see a copy of the EHE policy and been fobbed off, so I sent a FOI (freedom of information request) it came back with a copy and a copy of the new draft, which is awful.   I sent emails (so did Fiona Nicholson, who had been working with us) to the people we knew of at the LA that might be able to help make some progress, we had a list of names, but no one willing to say yes lets get this done.  We finally were given the name of the replacement, Mrs V, I emailed her and she responded with 'I'm sure we will meet and talk soon' I replied asking when, I didn't get a reply, nor did I get a reply from my emails to Mrs W, or any of the other staff, there seemed to be a strange silence. We found this worrying, so drafted a complaint and sent it in. I'm still waiting for a response. We know they were having a meeting this week, so we are waiting on the outcome.
Meanwhile, I was emailed by a newcomer to home ed to say she had had a letter from Learning and Behaviour Support ;
'..........Although I am sure you have already given serious thought to such an important matter, we would like to arrange a visit with NW our Re-Integration Officer to discuss this with you before we formally
process home education. We would ·Iike to arrange a visit for X date if this is convenient. You can telephone us on 000 or write to her at the address below to confirm this  date, and we will be able to discuss this with you.I am sure you will appreciate that the Local Authority must ensure that you are clearly informed about the legal situation, the relevant sections of the Education Acts and the Authority's procedure for monitoring education at home. Accordingly, information and guidance notes for parents are attached with this letter. It is important that you read all this information carefully, but I must draw your attention
to Part 1 The Legal Framework........'
She couldn't understand what they wanted, when she already new it was Mrs W that did EHE, she had a few things going on so I called on her behalf and spoke to NW and cancelled the appointment.  She told me that the appointment was so she could discuss with the family whether they were happy with the decision to home educate, or whether there were issues she could help resolve with the school. I told her they were happy, to which I was told, 'ok, I will pass the families details onto Mrs W the EHE, so she can organise a visit' I told her the family probably wont be having a visit 'oh well that's ok they can send children's work in instead as evidence'  'yep they wont be doing that either' I replied, to this she didn't know what to say, I asked if she knew EHE law, no she didn't, and was surprised that what she thought was law, actually wasn't.  I suggested that we meet and discuss all of this, she liked the idea and welcomed ways to make things better.  But, and isn't there always a frigging but? she spoke to her manager who rang me eventually a few days later, he was not willing to discuss anything, and downright refused to acknowledge that their behaviours were not appropriate. I also notified him (as we had already done every other member of staff) that the cooling off period that they had instigated was actually illegal and went again the 'pupil registration regulations 2006' his was not interested and wanted to know who would take action against them if it wasn't sorted.  He said that they would contact home edders if they ever felt the need to ask for their input on the LA policies. 
So not only do they know they are acting beyond the EHE guidelines, they are breaking the law, by telling schools not to remove children's names immediately, they don't actually care.  They are refusing to speak with us, or meet with us.  So I await a response to the complaint, and see if anything happens off the back of the meeting they've had.
I don't hold out much hope, so for now, I tell any local family to not deal with them at all, opt out of visits, don't send lengthy reports and definitely don't fill in their dodgy forms.  I happily will help any family and as I have before I will speak on their behalf. I will help write letters, I will say you should always reply to their correspondence, even if it is stating the law and saying sod off!!!!!

Tuesday, 9 November 2010

Are you home educating, privately fostering, disabled, according to the Metropolitan Police Service these are potentially vulnerable situations and they will be on alert for signs of abuse!

The absence of a child from a conventional school environment where staff are routinely trained in safeguarding responsibilities can in some circumstances lead to that child being in a more vulnerable situation and at a higher risk of neglect or abuse.


Oh really, evidence please.  Have they been nobbled by the NSPCC maybe?


Guess what, they don't have any, they are going on a few high profile cases in the media, which as we know were exploited for political purposes and nothing to do with home education.  Oh and lets lump in disability and private fostering too, everybody knows children in these situations sometimes are victims of abuse don't they.  Unlike children in schools and state care, so safe they are.


As Ali says So no Equalities Impact Assessment, no proper definitions, no evidence base, no justification = prejudice. 


Nice to know our police force are so ethical. Not!



Freedom of Information Request re Metropolitan Police Child Risk Assessment Matrix.




Update from Alison at Home Education Forums. 


What Grit has to say.


Thursday, 5 August 2010

FOI for details of all monies paid by Birmingham SCB to the NSPCC

A very interesting Freedom of Information Request has come to light regarding The Serious Case Review of the sad failure of Birmingham Social Services to act on the information coming at them from many directions warning of the danger Khyra Ishaq was in.  It seems that the NSPCC carried out the review free of charge; was that because it gave them a chance to try and tie the blame to home education?  They have been vocal  in slurring home educators, without any evidence by their own admission, from the beginning of the Badman/Balls attack (resulting in a well hidden apology to home educators) so they were hardly any more independent in their assessment than Badman as the SCR shows.  But the NSPCC do not own a money tree, they are funded by the government and the public, are they funded to cover Birmingham Local Authorities arse? I think not!

Friday, 18 June 2010

Ofsted’s report is seriously flawed

Press release from Graham Stuart MP.

NEWS RELEASE
June 17th, 2010

Ofsted Home Education Report Seriously Flawed Says Graham Stuart MP

Graham Stuart MP, who last week was elected to take the Chair of the Commons Education Select Committee, today condemned Ofsted’s report on home education, “Local Authorities and Home Education” as “an unpleasant hangover of the last government: a manifesto for more state power at the expense of dedicated home educators and their children”.

Mr Stuart went on, “It is astonishing that the Chief Inspector of Schools should stray onto home education and get it so wrong. In Ofsted’s official press release she says that “it is extremely challenging for local authorities to meet their statutory duty to ensure children have a suitable education”, when they have no such duty. Parents, not the state, have the statutory duty to ensure that their children have a suitable education.

“I find it deeply concerning that, after months of work, the Chief Inspector should make such a basic mistake and so utterly confuse the duties of local authorities and parents. Parents who home educate deserve our respect and awe at their dedication and achievements, not the relentless suspicion of an over mighty state.”

Under section 436A of the Education Act 1996, inserted by the Education and Inspections Act 2006, local authorities have a duty to identify children who are not receiving a suitable education in their area, so far as it is practical to do so. As the 2007 Elective Home Education Guidelines for Local Authorities make clear, however, ‘local authorities have no statutory duties in relation to monitoring the quality of home education on a routine basis’ and are only required to intervene if it appears that parents are not providing a suitable education.

Mr Stuart went on, “As local authorities do not have the power to demand access to home educated children and cannot insist on parents registering with them, the obvious and correct answer is for local authorities to improve their support for families so that more families make contact with them voluntarily. If they did this and made sure that they employed sympathetic staff who built good reputations, then the number of “unknown” children would be reduced. Such a positive approach would respect the primacy of parents in determining the education of their children and put the onus on local authorities to serve and support, rather than catalogue and monitor, families who home educate.

“Ofsted’s report has little to say about improving local authority support for home educated children and says only that the Department of Education should “consider” funding an entitlement for home-educated children to take public examinations. Ofsted’s report is seriously flawed and damaging to the confidence of home educating parents who had hoped that the relentless disinformation and bullying of the previous regime was over.”

ENDS


More details here.

Friday, 13 November 2009

The DCSF refuse to answer any of my Fois despite delaying for five months on some

Sanctuary Buildings
i(re                              department for                                                                                             Great Smith Street
children, schools and families                                                   Westminster
London, SW1P 3BT
Ms M Stafford                                             Email: andrew.partridgedscf.osi.00v.uk
13 November 2009
Dear Ms Stafford,
Your FOI and other communications with the Department
I am writing in response to your requests for information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act) and related communications dated 28 July, 27 August (2 emails), 28 August, 9 September, 10 September, 19 September (2 emails), 25 September, 26 September, and 26 October (2 emails) 2009.
2.  1 write to advise you that, other than in relation to any outstanding internal reviews of freedom of information responses which have already been sent to you, the Department will not be complying with your current requests relating to home education, nor further responding to your communications on the matter. It will deaf with freedom of information requests relating to any other matter in accordance with its obligations.
3.                The 'exemption which applies to your requests is section 14 of the Act which provides for information to be exempt from disclosure where the request for information is vexatious, or where the request is substantially similar to earlier requests and a reasonable interval has not elapsed.
4.                The Department has reviewed the volume, timing and content of the requests you have made to us under the Act and other related communications, including postings on the website Whatdotheyknow.com through which you have made your requests. It has considered your requests both cumulatively and on their individual merits under the Act. This process has meant further delay in your receiving a response to your requests, but that is inevitable in the circumstances.
5.                In reviewing the general pattern of your freedom of information requests and related correspondence I note that:
® since June 2009 you have submitted 15 requests on the subject of elective home education to the Department;

0 you have apparently submitted some 15 requests to other public authorities about elective home education via Whatdotheyknow.com; and
0 you have apparently added some 65 annotations to the requests submitted by others via VVhatdotheyknow.com, in several cases encouraging the requesters to apply for internal reviews and complain to the Information Commissioner. It is
open to you to do so, but the Department is also entitled to take this into account in considering the pattern of your requests.
6.The Department has not applied the section 12 cost threshold to any of your requests, as it has not been appropriate to do so, but it has calculated that the cost of handling the 10 of your requests it has already answered was not less than £3,300. It estimates that the cost of responding to your five current requests would be not less than £1375 (excluding the cost of this response).
7.This is a factor that the Department is entitled to take into account in assessing whether section 14 (1) is engaged. Section 14 (1) will be engaged where complying with the requests would impose a significant burden on a public authority in terms of expense and distraction.
8.Your outstanding requests and other communications are set out in Annex A to this letter.
Section 14(1)
9.The Department considers your requests vexatious for the reasons set out below.
10.  The Information Commissioner's guidance indicates that deciding whether a request is vexatious under section 14(1) of the Act is a flexible balancing exercise taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The Commissioner's guidance indicates that there is no rigid test or definition of the term, but it does provide a number of questions which guide public authorities in what they should consider:
·           Can the request fairly be seen as obsessive?
·           is the request harassing the authority or causing distress to staff?
·           Would complying with the request impose a significant burden?
·           Is the request designed to cause disruption or annoyance?
·           Does the request lack any serious purpose or value?
11. Taking the Commissioner's questions individually, the Department does not consider that your outstanding requests, or indeed the pattern of your requests as a whole, can definitively be described as obsessive. The Department recognises that elective home education is an issue which is of considerable concern to you, and it respects those who wish to clarify issues of public interest via freedom of information requests.

12. Nor does the Department consider that your requests lack any serious purpose or value.
13. The Department does not take a view about whether your requests are designed to cause disruption or annoyance — while that might appear to be the case from some of your communications and annotations to requests on to VVhatdotheyknow.com, the Department recognises that some of these interventions may result from frustration at delays in receiving a response from the Department
14. The Department does consider that your requests are imposing a significant burden in terms of expense to a publicly-funded authority, and in terms of the distraction of its officials away from other pressing business and non-vexatious requests. It considers that it is not reasonable, and therefore not in the wider public interest, for the Department to continue to devote substantial public resources to answering your requests. In particular the Department has noted that the pattern of your requests and communications in Annex A is such that the requests, when answered, have led to further requests and complaints. Like other public authorities the Department has only finite resources at its disposal, and there are increasing pressures on those resources. It is therefore not a straightforward matter to redeploy staff to deal with your requests.
15. The Department also considers that your requests are - in the sense of the term as used by the Information Commissioner - 'harassing' the Department and causing distress to staff. The Commissioner's guidance makes clear that the requester's intention is not the issue — it is an objective test in which a reasonable person must be likely to regard the request as harassing or distressing. Examples of this are provided in Annex B to this letter:
16. The Department has also noted:
· the availability of ample other opportunities and means to communicate views or concerns to the Government and to the Children, Schools and Families Select Committee: for example by contributing to the Review of Elective Home Education, by responding to the subsequent consultation on changes to the existing statutory arrangements, and lastly through the open invitation to make a submission to the select committee itself;
· the fact that of ten responses sent to you by the Department six provided the
information you requested in full and one in part, in two cases the information was not held, and in one it was reasonably accessible by other means and drawn to your attention:
·              the fact that of some 107 FOI requests received by the Department between
11 June and 27 October 2009 about elective home education, 74 (69%) were from a small group of nine FOI requesters, including yourself, in several instances apparently acting in concert via the website VVhatdotheyknow.com, as evidenced at Annex C. This is in the context of an estimated 20,000 home educated children in England;

that the apparent campaign to inundate the Department with FOI requests about elective home education has been contemporary with the vilification and harassment on the Internet of the author of the review of elective home education and others by unknown persons. Indeed the level of the requests generally on this matter and the nature of the postings on the Internet were such that it was felt necessary to write to the Information Commissioner's Office earlier this year:
The Department is not suggesting that you have participated in any vilification or harassment of the author of the report, but those activities are pertinent to the climate surrounding the review — with which the FOI requests were concerned.
17.  The Department notes the Commissioner's advice that if a request forms part of a wider campaign or pattern of requests, the serious or proper purpose must justify both the request itself and the lengths to which the campaign or pattern of behaviour has been taken. As I have said, the Department does not question your serious and proper purpose in making the requests. But the Department does not consider that this justifies the pattern of behaviour described above. Nor, given the several opportunities to contribute constructively to the public debate on this issue, does the Department consider that the requests are necessarily justified in themselves.
18.  The Department is not suggesting that each of your requests is necessarily vexatious in itself, but having taken careful account of the pattern of your
correspondence with the Department, interventions on the website
Whatdotheyknow.com, and the guidance provided by the Information Commissioner on the matter, I have concluded that your requests are vexatious in the sense of the Act.
Section 14 (2)
19.  Section 14(2) of the Act provides that, where a public authority has previously complied with a request from a person, it is not obliged to comply with a subsequent substantially similar one from that person unless a reasonable interval has elapsed between the two. The Department has looked at the pattern of your correspondence and your latest requests which in broad terms are all about the same or a substantially similar issue, and takes the view based on the evidence before it that this part of the exemption at section 14 is also engaged.
Conclusion
20.   In all the circumstances, and given the analysis above, the Department does not consider that it is reasonable or in the wider public interest for it to devote any further

public resources to answering the requests, or other correspondence, which are the subject of this letter.
21.  The Department will always seek to meet the legitimate rights of requesters to information, but in all the circumstances of the case it must also take into account the need for public servants and other individuals to be able to conduct legitimate business in the public interest without harassment or harm.
22.  While the Department will consider any future request under the Freedom of Information Act on its individual merits, if it concerns elective home education you are advised that it will be considered against the background of this letter
23.  If you are unhappy with the service you have received in relation to your requests and wish to make a complaint or request a review of our decision, you should write to, or email; me within two calendar months of the date of this letter. Please remember to quote the reference numbers (at the foot of this letter) in any future communications.
24.  If you are not content with the outcome of your complaint, you may apply directly to the Information Commissioner's Office for a decision. Generally, the Commissioner will not make a decision unless you have exhausted the Department's own internal review procedure.
25.  Finally, I apologise for the length of this letter. As well as complying with its statutory duties, the Department wishes to ensure that you have a comprehensive explanation for the action it is taking.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Partridge
Information Rights Manager, DCSF
Ref: 2009/0067849; 2009/0074942: 2009/0074943; 2009/0090673: 2009/0090678

Summary of outstanding requests and other communications
·        2009/0067849 — 28 July 2009 — FOI request for a frequency distribution of the answers to two questions in a questionnaire sent to local authorities (LA) as part of the review of EHE, and numbers of serious case reviews.
·        2009/0074942 — 27 August 2009 — FOI request for identification of various LA in which there were reported a high proportion of EHE children in social care, and a low proportion of, or no, EHE children receiving suitable education.
·        2009/0074943 — 27 August 2009 — FOI request for further statistics relating to released information about safeguarding intervention.
·        2009/0075134 — 28 August 2009 - an amendment of the previous request.
·        2009/0077597 — 9 September 2009 - a question as to whether the Department was refusing to hold an internal review, and request for a review.
·        2009/0077887 — 10 September 2009 - complaint and allegation of intent to delay on the part of the Department.
·        2009/0079990 -19 September 2009 - complaint about an earlier response - taken into account in an internal review on 3 November.
·        2009/0080057 — 19 September 2009 - further complaint about the earlier response, including the suggestion that the Department should redeploy staff to avoid being seen as obstructive or stonewalling, the allegation that the Department had intentionally misunderstood, and provided misinformation.
·        2009/0081535 — 25 September 2009 - an allegation that the Department has lied in its answer that information was not held.
·        2009/0081887 — 26 September 2009 - request for an internal review.
·        2009/0090673 — 26 October 2009 — FOI request for clarification about an Annex
released earlier.
·        2009/0090678 — 26 October 2009 — FOI request for copies of analysis and documents relating to DCSF verification of a submission submitted to the Select Committee by Graham Badman.

Examples of communications and other factors which have harassed or distressed
o     an allegation (mentioned above in Annex A) that the Department has lied in its response to the effect that information was not held.
·         an allegation of intent to delay on the part of the Department — made on 10
September despite the fact that you were aware of the problems the Department
was experiencing. For example, in its response of 29 July, providing all the information you had requested on 13 June the Department offered the following apology for the delay:
Before answering your request l should like to apologise for the delay in replying. The Department is aware that it has missed the statutory
deadline for reply and is in breach of its obligations under the Act. I very much regret this - the Department should meet its obligations under the Act. While I appreciate that it is in no way a justification I should like to explain that the Department makes every effort to meet deadlines, but the delay in responding in this case has been due to the unusual volume of
requests the Department has received in recent months. The Information Commissioner has been informed of the situation.
m  the frequency of your requests and interventions, sometimes twice in the same day.
·           your apparent reluctance to quote the Departmental reference numbers in
correspondence, and your derogatory remarks about what you perceive to be the inability of Departmental staff to click on links e.g: 'Please accept my heartiest commiserations for your inability to click on a link like the rest of the population, it must be most disabling.' (30 September 2009)
http://wvvw.whatdotheyknow.comirecuest/more clarification of the data i#comment-5423
hftp://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requestia summary of the answers to
ques#outgoing-33668
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requestievidence in support of badma  ns r#incoming-44785
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/recluest/local authority responses to t he#comment-4956
·           your apparent annotations on requests on Whatdotheyknow.com which include:
o 'Four months to say no, such respect for it's masters the DCSF have, not!'
http://vvww.whatdotheyknow.com/request/home education review rec ommenda#comment-6310
o 'My suspicion is that it is that awkward word evidence that is giving them the problem.'

http://wvvw.whatdotheyknow.com/request/home education review rec ommenda#comment-5439
o     They are doing this regularly now, still not realised we are not stupid.' http://vvvvw.whatdotheyknow.com/requestimore clarification of the da to i#comment-5423
o     They have had more than enough time to conduct an internal review on this, I would refer it to the information commissioner.' http://www,whatdotheyknow.comirequest/communications with nektu  s#comment-5300
o     Not even an acknowledgement, how rude.' http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/requestinumber of foi requests ma  de conc#comment-5254
o    'you should ask for an internal review and if they don't do that refer to the information commissioner. There is a lot of stonewalling going on ' http://www.whatdotheyknow.comirequest/home education evidence  of curre#comment-5181
o    Tor goodness sake, Graham Badman has accused us of being abusers and knowingly allowed the press to slur us with false twice as likely claims. I also suspect allowed is a misnomer. The DCSF repeatedly refuse to release the evidence probably because they have none and you are getting upset because somebody called him a liar!' http://www.whatdotheyknow.comirequest/communications with infor mation#comment-5114
o    'Evil man'
http://vvvvw.whatdotheyknow.comirequest/comparative statistics requ ested#comment-3363

Instances of apparently acting in concert via the website Whatdotheyknovv.com
·            'I would take you complaint higher asap and also refer this to the information commissioner'
http://www.whatdothevknow.comireduest/elective home education and cone 4 #cornment-5802
n  'I would refer this straight to the information commissioner. I do not see how they
can say the data would harm people when SCRs are put in the public domain.'
http://vvww.whatdotheyknow.com/request/serious case review figures pr es#comment-5301
·       Mame] could you follow this up.'
http://vvww.whatdotheyknow.com/request/concerns about suitability of e I 14#comment-5216
·       `I have just sent out a general request for people to include the refusal to answer this question in their submission to the Select Committee.
Please anyone reading this who hasn't already done their submission, could you consider including this, and any others like it.'
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/reduest/evidence in support of badma ns r#comment-5037
·       It is unclear whether this is referring to your initial request or your request for an internal review, whichever it is I would request another internal review immediately to prevent them giving themselves another 40 days and put the number in because in spite of the fact that they can as easily find the number as anyone else they will ask for it as another delaying tactic.'
http://www.whatdotheyknow.comfreduest/badman report conduct of the rev#comment-5035
·       'This can't be right, this is just part of your original request. I would refer to internal review, they must be trying it on.'

 [S1]

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed