Tuesday, November 24, 2009

I have signed this petition

- and will be promoting it, for what good it'll do, given that this government no longer seems to be taking input.

Jills petition


The petition is here and the wording is as follows:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to uphold that parents have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of their child, to not undermine parents legitimately fulfilling their fundamental duties, and to assume that the best interests of their child is the basic concern of parents unless there is specific evidence to the contrary. In particular, the government should ensure :-
  • No right of access to the family home without evidence of a crime
  • No right to interview a child alone without evidence of risk of serious harm
  • No CRB checks or registration for parents to look after their own children, or to informally look after those of their friends, family etc
  • No licensing / registration / assessment / monitoring of methods by which parents fulfil their duties without evidence that they are failing to do so, and with specific recognition that education “otherwise” than at school is a perfectly legal option to fulfil their duty regarding education
  • No undermining of parents as being in the best position to determine how to meet their child’s needs, according to their age, ability, aptitude, and any special needs they may have
  • Greater focus on applying existing resources and procedures to cases of children known to be at risk, rather than dilution of these resources by routinely monitoring whole sections of the community
  • Compliance with the fundamental presumption of innocence unless there is specific evidence to the contrary.

I like it because it covers everything without adding any compromising, lets-meet-them-halfway sort of bits that I can't put my name to. And its author has put her name to it! I'm proud to say that Jill Harris is a Calderdale home educator, with whom I'm yet to disagree on anything.

Other things that are going on include this new wiki, about which I'm a bit less sure, though on which I need to spend some more time before I take a position I think. I'm not in favour of groups of people meeting up to work out what's to be done about us, as if we were a problem - because we're not! So if the new wiki is working along those lines, then I won't be supporting it. So far it looks like it contains the bare bones of info, in much the same way as Dani's great, one-page leaflet does (copies of which I'm printing out to take to our home ed meeting tomorrow).

Meanwhile Graham Stuart, who spoke so well for us in Parliament last week, via a lady called Leaf Lovejoy, has asked for
Twitter messages from us which set out, in 140 characters or less, our objections to the bill. I've been thinking for over a day now of how to condense all my thoughts on this down to 140 characters and am no closer to doing so! I was also introduced to a new word (for me) yesterday: e-prolixity. Hmm. The cap fits: I think I'll wear it.

Twitter.com/csfselectcom

6 Comments:

Blogger Dani said...

I think the new wiki is an attempt to be open to all ideas about how to delay and oppose the Bill. It's been set up by Claire Blades, who organised the Mass Lobby of Parliament, in response to a suggestion by Graham Stuart that such a tool might be useful. So AFAIK it is not at all a place where a group of people will discuss what is to be done about us as if we are a problem. Not quite sure how you got that impression, tbh.

I am not sure about a wiki in this context, as I think collaborative working on a wiki requires quite a high level of trust between the contributors and I'm not sure that is where we are at.

Also, while I can see the point of introducing lots of minor amendments in order to delay the Bill as much as possible, I can't bring myself to suggest any because it would seem like we were saying the rest of it was OK.

12:35 pm, November 24, 2009  
Blogger Gill said...

Thanks Dani. I agree with you and I can't say where I got that impression, because it isn't an impression I've got! Not sure where you got the impression I've got that impression...

*ties head in knots* ;-)

12:45 pm, November 24, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Opposition in 140 characters or less(I don't tweet, btw):

"The Bill refuses to listen to the voice of the child and denies the child any right to self determination."

This is the single biggest thing about it all that really makes my blood boil and is why I shall oppose it to my last breath. It's barbaric. No stranger is going to interfere with my children in their own home or anywhere else.
We've had good relations with our LA up to now, and demonstrated to their satisfaction that we provide a suitable education, yadda yadda, (despite the fact that the children are autonomous learners) but there's no way we'll submit to this level of interference and examination.

1:36 pm, November 24, 2009  
Blogger Merry said...

*tries to decide whether to laugh or cry*

I like the sound of the petition and will only mull a little longer i think. I do agree we need to keep up the pressure and can only hope journalists trawl the petitions for things to write about.

Wiki - i have no time and cannot bear to get myself on the wrong side of any of the people who feel one way or another while i am in the middle of the Xmas work rush or while i try to enjoy a proper xmas with the girls for the first time in years.

140 characters... rofl - how long till Bills have to be twitter length?

1:39 pm, November 24, 2009  
Blogger Dani said...

Hi Gill,

Sorry for misunderstanding you. I got the impression you had that impression from your blog post, which said:

"Other things that are going on include this new wiki, about which I'm a bit less sure, though on which I need to spend some more time before I take a position I think. I'm not in favour of groups of people meeting up to work out what's to be done about us, as if we were a problem - because we're not! So if the new wiki is working along those lines, then I won't be supporting it."

Anyway, glad you don't think it is that.

6:18 pm, November 24, 2009  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think the wiki is a ay we can feed in our thoughts why stuff like the impact assessment is an ASS so they can pick it to piece and show it is based on ill founded assumptions and bad research rather than deluging people like GS with emails and facebook posts.
That gives more ammunition for challenging things in the next reading so as to begi to plant doubts about the whole thing in the minds of other MPs and Lords etc.
Amendments as far as I can see include amendments to reject the individual parts of the bill.
I'm not sure how it will all work and not yet clear about how I feel about it either but for me it doesn't particularly have a bad vibe for me at the moment.
Jo x

1:33 pm, November 25, 2009  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home