Welsh home education consultation (2012)

Posting this link here to keep the Welsh Ass con stuff together. Look who has crawled out from under his stone.

Open the door to list of home educators, says expert

Badman's only 'expertise' is in alienating an entire minority community. He can't even count. Nor should he be chucking stones around glass houses. Then there was that daughter of his who was cast as agent provocateur to infiltrate the HE community. There was also the family educational consultancy Nektus (which seemed to be set up in anticipation of compulsory registration for HE) whose communications with the then govt were apparently too sensitive to be revealed following a legitimate FOI request.

Why exactly can't any of these 'experts' understand the law and why it is as it is? Providing education is a parental duty and is the default model. School is an easy option for parents who choose to delegate their children's care. The law also provides for the state to intervene in the event that parents fail to fulfil their responsibilities. Not that they do a terribly good job either.

What next? Permission to copulate, go vegetarian, convert to Christianity, travel outside your local area? :scared:

Papiere, bitte! (Welsh translation?)

P.S. There should be another article in TES Scotland today, hooked on to the Welsh situation and no doubt giving the usual suspects a platform to vent their bigotry.
I would put money on this 'Nektus consultancy' being the controlling influence behind this campaign against HE. If compulsory registration, and all that money that would flow from that, is achieved then Nektus would have a market monopoly on advice to Government. Just think how lucrative that would be!
 

Diane

HEdups
You are probably right, Mayfly. He is a loathsome beast, isn't he?
Anyone else found either totally incompetent or falsifying statistics would be penalised but not our old pal.

Diane
 
Maybe we should go digging around Companies House again?

:whistle:
I think that is an excellent idea.

My experience is that behind every politician is a civil servant. But, these days, behind the civil servant is a consultant. The consultant makes his crust by creating problems that don't exist and then devising solutions which will make him wealthy. In the case of Graham Badman there is a huge market to capture. If he can convince just one of the British jurisdictions to regulate home education then the others will follow suit. He is trading on fear - the fear that he can instill into a civil servant that, without regulation, he may be hung, drawn and quartered if there is ever a child protection issue with a home education family on his watch. As we know, this a non issue because, as was said to the Education Committee, all Serious Case Reviews that involved a home educating family were cases which were already under multi agency surveillance.

The market that Badman will have his eye on is the 174 Local Education Authorities in England and Wales. He could supply each one with a training course on monitoring home educating families. Then there are training manuals, and training manual updates ad infinitum.

To put this in perspective, a set of Children's Services manuals for a local council costs circa £30,000. Think of that in terms of home education manuals for LEA's and you have an easy market worth over £5 million just for starters.

There is some information about NEKTUS here:

NEKTUS LTD
http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/nektus

Look at the directors:

  1. MRS SUSAN LYNN BADMAN
  2. MRS SALLY JANE DEVLIN
  3. MR JAMES RICHARD DEVLIN
  4. GRAHAM MICHAEL BADMAN
  5. MRS SALLY JANE DEVLIN
  6. MR JAMES RICHARD DEVLIN
  7. MRS SUSAN LYNN BADMAN
  8. MRS SALLY JANE DEVLIN

Monitoring home education is potentially big business for this company. So it strikes me that this is where the agenda might really lie. And that's an important point to consider because I am not aware of any academic papers that argue for monitoring home education. There are certainly no evidence based concerns.

We are dealing with little more than a commercially inspired witch hunt.
 

Diane

HEdups
They go in for nepotism in a big way, don't they?

Ms. Devlin is Badman's daughter, I believe.

Mrs. Susan Badman is presumably his wife.

I would guess Mr. James Richard Devlin is his son-in-law.

All set for the home educating gravy train boys and girls?

Diane
 

Elaine Kirk

Super Moderator
Four thousAnd five hundred and two pounds and forty five pence is the amount entered in harringey.gov.UK's monthly accounts for November 2011 as being paid to Nektus ltd

http://www.haringey.gov.uk/november_2011_expenditure.pdf

Not only is it a sizable monthly sum but leaves me wondering just where responsibility lays if top dogs in children's services are not actually employees of the council .....
...
....
....
On an entirely different subject can anyone recall a gov minister saying something about tax avoidance being Erm..
 
I had a look at a couple of other months and found them twice out of three, for roughly similar sums.
The size of some of the payments is enormous! Lots of 'small' sums for temporary accomodation etc at the bottom...
 

Admin

Administrator
Excellent letter, Hilary. It's bound to raise a few hackles, but will hopefully make at least some of the AMs think about their real priorities as well as the dangers of tinkering with the family/state relationship.

:clap2:
 

hilarysearing

Active member
For some time I've been pondering the legal position with regards to child protection concerns and trying to make sense of it.

My understanding of the law is that the local authority cannot intrude uninvited into the private sphere of a particular family unless there are reasons for concerns - and the Children Act 1989 sets out the 'threshold criteria' to be met if there is to be compulsory intervention. Mere suspicions are not sufficient. However, the legal definition of 'thresholds' is not at all clear. It has to be shown that the child is or is likely to suffer significant harm. The harm has to be due to unreasonable parenting i.e. parents not giving the care it would be reasonable for a parent to give that child. In my experience authorities are only really interested when they have sufficient evidence that the child may be at risk.

The point I am making is that it would be interesting to get legal advice on the 'threshold criteria' and the implications if parents refuse to co-operate with the local authority on the basis that there are no welfare concerns.
 
The point I am making is that it would be interesting to get legal advice on the 'threshold criteria' and the implications if parents refuse to co-operate with the local authority on the basis that there are no welfare concerns.
That needs to be done before someone gets their children taken into care, because it's a lot harder to negotiate with a wayward LA holding hostages. It also needs to be sorted in a manner where it's difficult for someone who is abusing their children to twist the interpretation in their favour because the backlash against the EHE community if someone bad does manage to hide behind whatever shields we erect is not going to be pretty. The Spry and Ishaq cases have shown that there are people who are prepared to try this trick.

Perhaps a way for LAs to require an appearance in court where, if the judgement goes against them, they get to pay the family enough compensation that they wouldn't do it lightly is the way forward. They have to have an incentive not to use a last resort as a first one, the same as with SAOs.
 

hilarysearing

Active member
That needs to be done before someone gets their children taken into care
In reality, the problems occur before social workers get involved. I was simply suggesting that home educators should mount a legal challenge to any unnecessary controls over their lives.

Genuine home educating parents have not failed in any way and do not need to be 'policed' by over-zealous education officers. See your England thread - 175(1) of the Education Act 2002 - with practical ideas on how to assert your rights when education over-steps its statutory powers.

As I said before, a preliminary threshold must be crossed before the state can intervene and this means there has to be evidence of child protection concerns.
 
In reality, the problems occur before social workers get involved. I was simply suggesting that home educators should mount a legal challenge to any unnecessary controls over their lives.

Genuine home educating parents have not failed in any way and do not need to be 'policed' by over-zealous education officers. See your England thread - 175(1) of the Education Act 2002 - with practical ideas on how to assert your rights when education over-steps its statutory powers.

As I said before, a preliminary threshold must be crossed before the state can intervene and this means there has to be evidence of child protection concerns.
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding what's being said here but my personal experience has been that no evidence is required, someone's 'opinion' is enough? I appreciate that might not be what the law states but the reality seems to be different?
 

hilarysearing

Active member
I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding what's being said here but my personal experience has been that no evidence is required, someone's 'opinion' is enough? I appreciate that might not be what the law states but the reality seems to be different?
Absolutely!

By allowing someone into your home you are giving away power to confront their misguided opinion. Sometimes we should decide not to co-operate with people in authority because we want to challenge their 'reality'.
 
Absolutely!

By allowing someone into your home you are giving away power to confront their misguided opinion. Sometimes we should decide not to co-operate with people in authority because we want to challenge their 'reality'.
Ah I see what you mean now, sorry, it was a bit early for me :) Yes, I have found that no interaction with them at all is the only way to stay safe.
 

Admin

Administrator
The point I am making is that it would be interesting to get legal advice on the 'threshold criteria' and the implications if parents refuse to co-operate with the local authority on the basis that there are no welfare concerns.
Indeed and it's also a question of how best to meet existing statutory and budget priorities. How many LAs realistically have spare resources to chuck at anything borderline, never mind of minor concern, when there are zillions of cases where there is no doubt that children need compulsory measures of support and protection? The cover story about early intervention (to prevent later problems, save money, improve 'wellbeing' - pleeeeeze give me strength :frusty:) is just a Trojan horse as we have long been arguing.

Scotland is meanwhile pursuing its own total surveillance wet dream with its paedophile address book proposals to allocate a Named Person (state agent) to oversee every child's 'wellbeing' without an opt-out from so-called 'services'. We've are being slowly but surely stitched up by stupid (or complicit) politicians, compliant 'professionals' who do what they're told (and some even seem to believe what they're told) and the largely lazy and unquestioning mainstream media.

Legislating for universal early interference in family life would not comply with the ECHR and could therefore be struck down, we have been given to understand (but different lawyers invariably say different things - a bit like Scottish EU membership post independence :)). Meanwhile all the 'pathfinder' professionals have all been happily breaching data protection and human rights legislation in anticipation of the (non compliant) legislation being passed, the (non) justification being that it will stop dead kids turning up in canals (but hang on, that isn't exactly true...)

A legal challenge to the Scotish Government's proposals to effectively legalise data rape may well need to be mounted, but those who could realistically fund such a challenge from a HE perspective may well bring different problems. Devil or deep blue sea?

As for Wales, the Welsh Ass Govt really should be asking where its priorities lie in the light of recent revelations about the systematic abuse of children in its care system by those in positions of power and (clearly misplaced) trust. Creating problems rather than dealing with those staring them in the face suggests serial stupidity, complacency, or worse on the part of its Members, their hangers on and the vested interests in the public, private and third sectors.
 
Top