Looked after children - or LACs as they are often referred to, are those children who are in foster care or who are living in children's homes. If ever there was an unfortunate acronym, it must be this one. LAC is a term I have heard teachers and lecturers use frequently and far too often with the hearing of the children themselves, the LACs. The children or young people might not know what the acronym stands for, and in most cases I am sure they don't. Education, just as the other professions, is full of acronyms. They work as a kind of shorthand between professionals and usually it doesn't matter whether the students hear them or not. But LACs is different. If they hear it, it might well be deeply affecting. There was no ill-intent in the formation of this acronym, but LACs clearly suggests something is missing, something is not complete and for looked after children, that is undoubtedly the case.
These children are in foster care or in children's home because of some kind of family break up. They are often traumatised, always confused and mostly sad and yearning for their former lives, despite the neglect, the violence, the neglect and the misery.
Children, more than any other demographic, feel it acutely when they are different from others. Different is what they do not want to be. How often do you hear children saying they want something and that everyone else has got one? They want to be the same - the same as other children. They know they are not and, cruel as children can be, some of them are more than happy to point it out.
I have been involved in education and in fostering for many years and speak from experience about the horrors and the lifelong damage that some parents unleash onto their children.
If this were not enough, Michael Wilshaw, the Chief Inspector of Schools, on January 13th, pointed out the widening gap between pupils not in care and those who are. In addition, Wilshaw pointed out the lack of accountability between schools, Local Authorities and the Government regarding the progress of LACs.
This is a disgraceful state of affairs. All the more disgraceful as schools receive a Pupil Premium, direct funding, to be used solely on these pupils. It would be truly shocking if schools were less than determined to spend this money on anything or anyone other than children in care.
It is essential that these children, whose circumstances and families, for whatever reason, have let them down, are not let down again by the very people, the professionals, who should be doing their level best to even the odds and to make life as equal as possible for those who so desperately need it.
Friday 30 January 2015
Friday 16 January 2015
Rudeness and the lack of manners are never acceptable.
Last night, on Question Time, the panel consisted of Anna Soubry Tory MP, Douglas Alexander MP Labour, a Lib-Dem woman, Medhi Hassan, editor of Huffington Post and David Starkey , historian and presenter.
There is no doubt that David Starkey is often controversial and even, maybe, deliberately provocative. That said, it is clear that what he says, he actually believes, whereas the politicians, almost without fail, say what they think we, the electorate, want to hear. It often feels too, as if there is a battle in progress, as to which of the panel members can damn atrocities the most. In addition, they battle for first place in the 'who can be the most feeling panel member.' Honestly - do they think we are stupid? Sanctimony stinks and should be avoided. In all seriousness, they underestimate the voters at their peril.
The sanctimony battle involves serious, sonorous tones aligned with facial expressions which convey, simultaneously, their complete horror, shock, outrage. They have it off to a fine art. Except, that is, for David Starkey. Of course, he is not pursuing votes so he does not have to employ histrionics in the way the vote seekers do. But, if the politicians would stop this 'I'm all heart' charade, then I,for one, would respect them more. Like the truth, pretension will always out.
What particularly struck me though, last night, was the appalling manners of the people on the panel. They interrupted each other, were particularly personally offensive to each other and were a perfect example of how not to behave. What I found especially offensive was the treatment meted out to David Starkey. There had been much vacuous talk about respect - how all of us should treat each other with respect. Medhi Hassan was particularly vocal on this matter. However, as Suzanne Moore pointed out, writing in the The Guardian yesterday, it is hard to respect a religion which doesn't respect women, and sees them as second class citizens.
Still on respect, it seemed that David Starkey was fair game. He is small, old, right wing, gay and cuts quite an odd figure. There are not many men left who are like him. For some, mainly idiots, these characteristics make him fair game - how foolish they are.
Last night Twitter carried several insults for him, calling him an old queen, mocking how he spoke and exclaiming that he had 'lost it'. I found this unfair and offensive. The tone of the tweets was 'senile old bastard - no one need respect him.' Other panel members were rude to him, muttering as he spoke, eye rolling and pulling faces. Starkey did not do this to anyone, except for telling Anna Soubtry that she was very good at stating the obvious - impolite but true. ( Many thought the same regarding MsSoubry. One person on Twitter preferred to watch paint dry and received 22 favourites.) I wondered if any of her thoughts and words had any originality at all. Her answers were predictable and often swerved the real question. She perhaps had a ticker tape transplanted into her head.
Douglas Alexander was all bleeding heart, Mehdi Hassan deigned to admit that the atrocities in Paris last week were horrific and bleated a little about his faith being hijacked. The LibDem woman was so unmemorable that I cannot recall one word she said. I would not care if I never hear another word from any of them.
The one person from Question Time in whose answers I was interested, was David Starkey. He was knowledgable, spoke eloquently and was for the most part polite. He was, by far, the one from whom, I wanted to hear more - much more. Judging from the audience applause, I was not alone. From him, I actually learnt something.
There is no doubt that David Starkey is often controversial and even, maybe, deliberately provocative. That said, it is clear that what he says, he actually believes, whereas the politicians, almost without fail, say what they think we, the electorate, want to hear. It often feels too, as if there is a battle in progress, as to which of the panel members can damn atrocities the most. In addition, they battle for first place in the 'who can be the most feeling panel member.' Honestly - do they think we are stupid? Sanctimony stinks and should be avoided. In all seriousness, they underestimate the voters at their peril.
The sanctimony battle involves serious, sonorous tones aligned with facial expressions which convey, simultaneously, their complete horror, shock, outrage. They have it off to a fine art. Except, that is, for David Starkey. Of course, he is not pursuing votes so he does not have to employ histrionics in the way the vote seekers do. But, if the politicians would stop this 'I'm all heart' charade, then I,for one, would respect them more. Like the truth, pretension will always out.
What particularly struck me though, last night, was the appalling manners of the people on the panel. They interrupted each other, were particularly personally offensive to each other and were a perfect example of how not to behave. What I found especially offensive was the treatment meted out to David Starkey. There had been much vacuous talk about respect - how all of us should treat each other with respect. Medhi Hassan was particularly vocal on this matter. However, as Suzanne Moore pointed out, writing in the The Guardian yesterday, it is hard to respect a religion which doesn't respect women, and sees them as second class citizens.
Still on respect, it seemed that David Starkey was fair game. He is small, old, right wing, gay and cuts quite an odd figure. There are not many men left who are like him. For some, mainly idiots, these characteristics make him fair game - how foolish they are.
Last night Twitter carried several insults for him, calling him an old queen, mocking how he spoke and exclaiming that he had 'lost it'. I found this unfair and offensive. The tone of the tweets was 'senile old bastard - no one need respect him.' Other panel members were rude to him, muttering as he spoke, eye rolling and pulling faces. Starkey did not do this to anyone, except for telling Anna Soubtry that she was very good at stating the obvious - impolite but true. ( Many thought the same regarding MsSoubry. One person on Twitter preferred to watch paint dry and received 22 favourites.) I wondered if any of her thoughts and words had any originality at all. Her answers were predictable and often swerved the real question. She perhaps had a ticker tape transplanted into her head.
Douglas Alexander was all bleeding heart, Mehdi Hassan deigned to admit that the atrocities in Paris last week were horrific and bleated a little about his faith being hijacked. The LibDem woman was so unmemorable that I cannot recall one word she said. I would not care if I never hear another word from any of them.
The one person from Question Time in whose answers I was interested, was David Starkey. He was knowledgable, spoke eloquently and was for the most part polite. He was, by far, the one from whom, I wanted to hear more - much more. Judging from the audience applause, I was not alone. From him, I actually learnt something.
Sunday 4 January 2015
Ched Evans and a little redemption.
I feel confident that you will have heard of Ched Evans. He is the footballer who has been convicted for rape and who has served two and a half years of his five year sentence. Many people want to bring back hanging, the stocks, tar and feathering for Ched Evans alone.
Before continuing I must make it clear that rape is a heinous crime. Nothing will change my mind on that.
Ched Evans has always denied he committed rape, which explains why he has neither shown remorse, nor apologised to his victim. The victim, at the time of the rape, claimed that she was almost unconscious, but if you watch the video of her walking into the hotel and passing reception, she is not falling over nor does she seem in the least bit drunk. She is carrying a pizza, then remembers that her handbag is still in the taxi. She dashes to the taxi, then retrieves her bag.
Furthermore, she has claimed rape before and the most cynical amongst us might believe that she was on the make: she wanted to accuse a relatively high profile sportsperson in order to bolster her bank account. Some say she has done this previously and settled out of court.
So, should Ched Evans play football ever again? Well, it seems his chances of playing for Sheffield United again, the club he played for at the time of his conviction, are nil. However, after forays of international interest, it appears that Oldham Athletic will sign him tomorrow.
And I, for one, am glad. Not just glad for the individual but for the fact that Oldham have had the courage, the sheer gumption to defy the petition their fans have handed in and to let the young man play.
Ched Evans, if he did commit rape, raped one person, one time, when he was twenty-three years old. Those people who are demanding his head, and demanding he never play football again, must not believe in redemption. If we do not believe in and do not apply redemption that means that most of us are to be condemned forever for the crimes we have committed. Prisons would be even more overcrowded, forgiveness, a major tenet of all major religions, would be ignored and no one would ever deserve a second chance. What kind of a world would that be?
Those who say Ched Evans should not be able to play football because footballers are role models, really need to do some research. There are numerous high profile players who have committed crimes; some have been charged with GBH, others drunk driving and in one case, causing the death of two young children by dangerous driving. These people are not role models, yet they play in the highest level of English football.
If Ched cannot play football as his job, would his enemies like to draw up a lst of jobs he can do? What exactly should he be allowed to do? The fact is that whether he may or may not be guilty, he will be chastened.
The fallout from all this must have an effect on his family and his loyal girlfriend, many who say, quite cruelly, that she is a Stepford wife. I am certain that his mother in particular, must be suffering. In her eyes, no doubt, her son has been to prison and he has served his time. All mothers and fathers must be relieved when their son or daughter's sentence is served.
I am a Sheffield United supporter and have frankly been ashamed of some of my fellow fans, including Jessica Ennis and Dave Berry. Why have they come out as judge and jury? In Ennis's case I would be happy to see her name removed from the stand as I do not know what it is doing there in the first place. I am not on my own in this opinion. 'The Blades' have a proud history and it would be much more relevant to have a footballer's name on that stand. There are plenty from which to choose.
The people who are sending death threats to Ched Evans and those, like me, who stick their neck out to wish him the best, at least believe in second chances. How foolish the screamers and screechers against Ched Evans will look if or when Ched Evans wins his appeal. Or when they themselves are found wanting in a serious way. A major tenet of Christianity is 'Judge not that ye be not judged.' I agree with that, even though I am not a Christian
As for Oldham, I would like to congratulate the club for taking Ched on in the face of such negativity. and opposition. I also hope that Ched is in the form of his life and bangs in goals for Oldham left, right and centre.
Before continuing I must make it clear that rape is a heinous crime. Nothing will change my mind on that.
Ched Evans has always denied he committed rape, which explains why he has neither shown remorse, nor apologised to his victim. The victim, at the time of the rape, claimed that she was almost unconscious, but if you watch the video of her walking into the hotel and passing reception, she is not falling over nor does she seem in the least bit drunk. She is carrying a pizza, then remembers that her handbag is still in the taxi. She dashes to the taxi, then retrieves her bag.
Furthermore, she has claimed rape before and the most cynical amongst us might believe that she was on the make: she wanted to accuse a relatively high profile sportsperson in order to bolster her bank account. Some say she has done this previously and settled out of court.
So, should Ched Evans play football ever again? Well, it seems his chances of playing for Sheffield United again, the club he played for at the time of his conviction, are nil. However, after forays of international interest, it appears that Oldham Athletic will sign him tomorrow.
And I, for one, am glad. Not just glad for the individual but for the fact that Oldham have had the courage, the sheer gumption to defy the petition their fans have handed in and to let the young man play.
Ched Evans, if he did commit rape, raped one person, one time, when he was twenty-three years old. Those people who are demanding his head, and demanding he never play football again, must not believe in redemption. If we do not believe in and do not apply redemption that means that most of us are to be condemned forever for the crimes we have committed. Prisons would be even more overcrowded, forgiveness, a major tenet of all major religions, would be ignored and no one would ever deserve a second chance. What kind of a world would that be?
Those who say Ched Evans should not be able to play football because footballers are role models, really need to do some research. There are numerous high profile players who have committed crimes; some have been charged with GBH, others drunk driving and in one case, causing the death of two young children by dangerous driving. These people are not role models, yet they play in the highest level of English football.
If Ched cannot play football as his job, would his enemies like to draw up a lst of jobs he can do? What exactly should he be allowed to do? The fact is that whether he may or may not be guilty, he will be chastened.
The fallout from all this must have an effect on his family and his loyal girlfriend, many who say, quite cruelly, that she is a Stepford wife. I am certain that his mother in particular, must be suffering. In her eyes, no doubt, her son has been to prison and he has served his time. All mothers and fathers must be relieved when their son or daughter's sentence is served.
I am a Sheffield United supporter and have frankly been ashamed of some of my fellow fans, including Jessica Ennis and Dave Berry. Why have they come out as judge and jury? In Ennis's case I would be happy to see her name removed from the stand as I do not know what it is doing there in the first place. I am not on my own in this opinion. 'The Blades' have a proud history and it would be much more relevant to have a footballer's name on that stand. There are plenty from which to choose.
The people who are sending death threats to Ched Evans and those, like me, who stick their neck out to wish him the best, at least believe in second chances. How foolish the screamers and screechers against Ched Evans will look if or when Ched Evans wins his appeal. Or when they themselves are found wanting in a serious way. A major tenet of Christianity is 'Judge not that ye be not judged.' I agree with that, even though I am not a Christian
As for Oldham, I would like to congratulate the club for taking Ched on in the face of such negativity. and opposition. I also hope that Ched is in the form of his life and bangs in goals for Oldham left, right and centre.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)