Here some suggested organisations that offer expert advice on SN.

Recent activity on twitter re certain LA solicitor

(99 Posts)

It ain't him tbh, but a particular gleeful respondent to one of his tweets. Made my stomach churn.

MariaNoMoreLurking Wed 23-Oct-13 23:50:58

.?

SickOfLAs Thu 24-Oct-13 08:15:31

Do you mean this twitter exchange? All the more shocking because a very quick 5 minute google showed up that Person A is the out of school officer for a LA. All tweeted using a very public social media forum - so not a private conversation.

Solicitor:
Also saw my first selection of Single Plans today - if parents thought Statements were bad you aint seen nothing yet!

Person A:
have you got any copies you can share????

Solicitor:
Yep, will send one to you. Nothing like Statements at all. In fact, I would say they are a step backwards. Limited specificity etc.

Person A:
great!! Will look forward to the legislation change!!

Yes. That exchange.

Blood curdling.

babiki Thu 24-Oct-13 10:49:18

sad disgusting

lottieandmia Thu 24-Oct-13 10:52:23

I think I know who you're talking about - is the militant ABA one? I am very glad our tribunal was before his time but I'm worried for all the families affected by him.

What the hell motivates people like him, that's what I want to know.

lottieandmia Thu 24-Oct-13 10:52:40

sorry I meant anti ABA.

I hate to say it Lottie, but it isn't him. He is motivated by people who employ him. They are the culprits, like Person A in this thread.

lottieandmia Thu 24-Oct-13 11:03:58

It is the one that begins with B though? I just found it on Twitter. I'm horrified tbh.

lottieandmia Thu 24-Oct-13 11:04:23

The firm I mean.

yes

I'm trying to work out what motivates Person A.

It can't be vindictiveness surely? From my understanding of it all, these people actually see themselves as victims and think the system is unfairly against them.

inappropriatelyemployed Thu 24-Oct-13 11:56:51

Maybe she is just really thick. Many of them are sadly.

She must be thick to post her views so publically against parents on such a public forum whilst holding the job she does.

AgnesDiPesto Thu 24-Oct-13 13:40:24

I was sort of hoping reply was sarcasm
I am loving the BS logo. Very apt.

dev9aug Thu 24-Oct-13 13:43:20

grin @ BS

tryingtokeepintune Thu 24-Oct-13 13:44:48

With attitudes like this, I feel like just giving up.

lottieandmia Thu 24-Oct-13 14:39:17

BS indeed grin I was thinking the same thing earlier.

I think people who work for the LEA sometimes are not very bright. They cannot think outside the box and have been ground down by the 'system'. The ones I've come across don't seem to have much about them to admire (except a very few).

We all know that they have the capacity to tell absolute lies to be seen to be 'right' an often don't even know much about the law itself anyway. It's not surprising sadly.

trying, it is the only system we have. You mustn't give up, just change your expectations. Not of your child, not of their entitlement, but of people to give a shit or to see you as reasonable rather than an overly emotional greedy parent.

You have to remember that children of overly emotional greedy parents also deserve to have their needs met, so what they think of you is irrelevant.

sickofsocalledexperts Thu 24-Oct-13 14:59:06

Someone should leak it to the newspaper most local to them - media LOVES twitter cock-ups like this

inappropriatelyemployed Thu 24-Oct-13 15:20:31

But how do we know who the poster who responded is?

tryingtokeepintune Thu 24-Oct-13 15:28:59

Starlight - after so many years in the system my expectations are so low.

Sorry, just posted off another appeal so feeling down.

Yes, it is the only system we have - I have stopped responding to any consultations (learnt our presence only enabled them to tick the box about parental consultation and ignore anything we say) and am just waiting to see how it pans out so know how to respond to the changes.

Love the BS comment though!

Person A is easily googleable and works in a similar part of the country to the solicitor.

MariaNoMoreLurking Thu 24-Oct-13 17:14:35

Has it disappeared?

TOWIELA Thu 24-Oct-13 17:22:42

No it's still there. Shocking comment. If ironic - it's in very poor taste and can easily be taken to have another meaning. A recent very high profile person tweeted something which was claimed to be "ironic" but a court differed and found it was extremely libellous.

lottieandmia Thu 24-Oct-13 18:15:55

So, the question is, is there anything we can do about it?

inappropriatelyemployed Thu 24-Oct-13 18:45:42

Has anyone posted a response to it?

inappropriatelyemployed Thu 24-Oct-13 18:47:08

I think that is the only way it can be brought to anyone's attention. Perhaps by some of us tweeting it at CDC and/or IPSEA asking Person A to 'explain' why they think this is a good thing?

inappropriatelyemployed Thu 24-Oct-13 18:51:51

I can see several people of that name on google and would not be able to identify that person.

chocnomore Thu 24-Oct-13 20:22:40

IE, she has a profile pic on twitter and is on FB with an open profile stating her location. looks like the same person.

inappropriatelyemployed Thu 24-Oct-13 20:29:36

I don't doubt you but just saying it is not immediately apparent. You super sleuths!

Tweet back and ask her to explain herself. I fear I am too identifiable on twitter so have been keeping a low profile.

TOWIELA Thu 24-Oct-13 20:37:34

One of her followers,with the same surname and looks to be the same person as in her picture, works for David Cameron

Blimey TOWIELA, that certainly is fantastic sleuthing.

I wonder if DC likes his dishes S&Q?

I can't right now. Got AR coming up for transition stage. Truth is everyone is going round in circles about the legislation changes to pay much attention atm but don't wanna be upsetting anyone all the same.

TOWIELA Thu 24-Oct-13 20:59:13

Star - it actually isn't fantastic sleuthing - it's blatantly obvious when someone has that tiny number of followers. That's the trouble with twitter - it really is very very open and very much a public forum - it doesn't take much to join the dots.

wetaugust Thu 24-Oct-13 21:07:01

confused

I have not got a Scooby about what you lot are on about.

confused

Can someone please enlighten me?

mrslaughan Thu 24-Oct-13 21:15:27

YOu should copy the tweet, and report it too his/her employer (not direct manager, but as far up as you can go)...they are sure to have an electronic communications policy,. and I can't see how that sort of comment could be seen to fall within a professional one.

lottieandmia Thu 24-Oct-13 21:17:01

wetaugust - there is a well known legal firm that represents LEAs and tries to stop parents winning appeals. Someone from this firm has tweeted, basically that provision won't be quantified in the future and will take a 'backward step' and someone from a LA has tweeted back in a gloating fashion that she can't wait for changes in the law.

And the person appearing with her in her profile picture, has published a whole bunch of pics of himself at No.10.

It's all very.....surreal tbh.

lottieandmia Thu 24-Oct-13 21:29:49

Yep, very odd hmm

annabelcaramel Thu 24-Oct-13 21:32:55

Please please please report this person to the Monitoring Officer at their authority. By the sounds of it they will almost certainly have breached the employee code of conduct.

wetaugust Thu 24-Oct-13 21:36:53

So we have a bit of conspiracy coupled with poor taste in a sort of 'good day to bury bad news' scenario?

Who spotted this Twitter exchange?

What can be done about it?

Anniemousse Thu 24-Oct-13 21:50:53

Someone with same name as person A is also chair of govenors at a school in the same county

Bluebirdonmyshoulder Thu 24-Oct-13 22:04:31

Please please please please please report Person A to the Equalities and Diversity team of the LA they work for. Make a specific complaint that this exchange would appear to be in breach of the Equalities Act, the LA's E&D policy, blah blah. PM me if you want my help, used to work for an LA and happy to play these bastards at their own fucking game.

If they were tweeting with glee that a piece of legislation was going to make it harder for Muslim children to receive the education they deserve then they'd be fired. Why are our children different?

And absolutely no offence to Muslims, that was not a Daily Mail style 'bigotry disguised as anti-PC' comment, just a comment on appalling double standards when it comes to children with disabilities / SEN as opposed to other minorities. Have travelled in Muslim countries, not an EDL member, some of my best friends etc etc!

inappropriatelyemployed Thu 24-Oct-13 22:15:35

Well we should tweet at it rather than hang round here moaning about it.

ouryve Thu 24-Oct-13 22:21:06

Bluebird - you're echoing a lot of what that mencap guest blog said, the other day.

I need someone to PM me info, since I live in a whole different world, up here (though only a few miles from an LA that might employ a SEN unsympathetic law firm) and i don't even know where to start with the sleuthing.

inappropriatelyemployed Thu 24-Oct-13 22:29:18

On the basis of the tweet itself, no one is going to get in to trouble - someone could easily say they were just being sarcastic as it is an awful piece of legislation etc etc.

It certainly does not breach the Equality Act on its own terms.

If you don't like it, challenge it.

wetaugust Thu 24-Oct-13 22:59:11

How about an FOI asking that LA how much they have spent on legal representation at Tribunals?

The local newspapaer may be interested to know grin

nennypops Thu 24-Oct-13 23:38:03

Talking of which, this decision is quite an enjoyable read - www.osscsc.gov.uk/Aspx/view.aspx?id=3954

I liked this bit:

"The grounds of appeal also argued that the First-tier Tribunal ‘failed to identify the special educational provision that was required to meet those needs in accordance with s 312(4) Education Act 1996.’ That misstates the position. The tribunal did not have to identify the special educational provision that E required to meet her needs. That would be the purpose of the assessment."

Well, durr. Surely any fule can work that one out, but apparently not BS though. Makes you wonder whether they weren't just appealing for the sake of it.

They appealed to an Upper Tribunal the order to carry out an assessment? shock

Though actually there is no shock. This firm aim for maximum stress and cost to parents as their main tool and selling point to LAs.

nennypops Fri 25-Oct-13 00:01:48

Yes, that made me quite shock too. You have to wonder whether it isn't done purely to try to impress the LA, and to bully the parent who didn't have a lawyer.

salondon Fri 25-Oct-13 02:02:03

Before wetaugust's comment I didn't know what you his were talking about. How do I see this tweet? And what firm is this? I know you guys can't name names. But atleast some hint on what to google?

lottieandmia Fri 25-Oct-13 10:41:53

I've pmed you Salondon.

ArthurPewty Fri 25-Oct-13 10:47:17

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Of course it is nenny. A family that didn't employ a lawyer may well not have the resources to fight at Court (like the majority who have struggled to meet the costs of a legal team for the first tier) and the persistent and 'vexatious' nature of this kind of appeal has surely 'bully the parents' at the heart of it.

Good on IPSEA to take this one on.

TOWIELA Fri 25-Oct-13 10:52:05

I am horrified to see that the same lawyer is now tweeting that there should be a fee to take an appeal to Tribunal. Of course, as it's parents that appeal, it'll hit vulnerable children once again.

As we know, LAs are using illegal blanket policies and refusing SA but then backing down weeks before Tribunal. No doubt, if there was such a fee, in these cases the courts would not order the LA to refund the parents a Tribunal fee.

lottieandmia Fri 25-Oct-13 11:01:49

I just saw that too TOWIELA shock

I don't disagree with a fee, but it should be paid by the LA if a parent appeals on the basis that THEY did not do enough to head it off.

And particularly given the recent behaviour linked here of the upper tier appeal of a first tier tribunal order to assess. How in the world would that be a better use of tax payers money than the cheaper path of simply assessing the child and give them a note in lieu?

TOWIELA Fri 25-Oct-13 12:38:26

I don't disagree with a fee, but it should be paid by the LA if a parent appeals on the basis that THEY did not do enough to head it off.

The problem is, it won't be, it'd be paid by whoever brings the appeal. And, like the very very rare occasion when costs are awarded now, even if the LA caused the appeal, the courts would never order it to be repaid to the parents.

inappropriatelyemployed Fri 25-Oct-13 19:05:47

It's all part of the mentality reflected by the DfE in response to our submissions on the CFB - namely, that parents drag out cases by 'upping the ante' on the advice of 'parental advocates'

Yet every month LAs drag things out is a month's costs saved and no one seems remotely interested in that.

'it may promote mediation and would make all parties think 2 about going to the Tribunal'

This is the response to why fees should be charged which is fundamentally flawed because:

a)Parent's think a lot more than twice about it. They face the fear, the costs and the emotional turmoil because they HAVE NO CHOICE.

and

b)LA's have no reservations about spending money to meet their own agendas regardless of the needs of the child.

nennypops Fri 25-Oct-13 21:55:27

What makes him think fees would put people off? In most appeals you've got to stump up for experts' reports as a minimum, and some people end up spending a lot more on representation, so why would a fee make a difference? At the other end of the scale, the fee would be covered for people on legal aid. The only people who might be put off are those who don't qualify for legal aid but who are really struggling financially, and I really can't see any justification for depriving them and their children of the right to go to the tribunal. The more I hear of this man, the more unprintable my views become.

If you read the rest of the twitter feed it is clear that the tone of the exchanges is one of concern/disapproval of the changes - the Person A response is ironic in that context.

TheTimeTravellersWife Sat 26-Oct-13 10:44:03

MissBeeHiving, I disagree about the comments being ironic.

It is my understanding Person A is a LA employee, involved in Education, and that is the reason why she is so happy about the unspecified, step backwards that an EHC Plan will result in.

Re: Costs/fees and tribunals, what we need and many people, including myself have repeatedly asked the DofE for, is that costs should be awarded in cases where LAs have clearly acted unreasonably, e.g. withdrawing an appeal the DAY BEFORE Tribunal, causing maximum costs and stress to parents.

The SEN reforms will do nothing to change the fundamental injustice in the system, which is stacked against parents and their vulnerable children.

No wonder Sarah Teather is quitting politics.

TheTimeTravellersWife Sat 26-Oct-13 10:46:54

Yes, Starlight, I truly resent the implication that parents got to Tribunal lightly.....it is a massive undertaking, financially and emotionally. A fee will make no difference, in the context of the expense of obtaining legal advice and expert reports.

Ah well, couldn't help myself in the end.....

TOWIELA Sat 26-Oct-13 22:03:26

I've had to step away from the keyboard because of his tweets.

Parents are more streetwise than LAs shock

LAs are cutting back on SEN professionals against BS advice (bet BS haven't advised LAs to cut back on their legal fees!!!)

Poor lamb has got a hearing on Monday and he's wondering if he'll get there. ( A small inconvenience for him but agonising for some poor sod of the parents)

angry angry

I really have had to step away from the keyboard...

nennypops Sun 27-Oct-13 08:31:53

He seems to have noticed the new code of practice about three weeks later than everyone else.

This is the bit that had me shock:

"I am surprised that parental groups are not fighting to save Statements"

What the hell does he think has been happening? And if he thinks it's that important, why wasn't he there helping?

inappropriatelyemployed Sun 27-Oct-13 09:09:35

To be honest though, I have not seen much fighting to save statements.

Many of the big organisations took Government money to pilot the reforms and have been reduced to 'collecting views' and not doing much with them.

There has been no work on the pilots in terms of analysis and much pedantry around wording.

There has also been lots of tea with Timpson and photo opportunities and talk of a new era of parent co-production by some 'activists'.

I haven't seen one lobbying document that says - stop the Bill, enforce what we have.

I agree. Organisations have been bought with money, and parents have been bought with promises of money/Personal budgets.

nennypops Sun 27-Oct-13 11:21:01

But I know that Ipsea, for instance, has been doing a lot of work direct with the DfE on this. There obviously did come a point when it was obvious the government was hell bent on the new legislation and nothing was going to change that, so they changed focus to trying to improve the new regime, but they certainly did try to retain statements.

On another tack - that tweet about whether he'll be able to get to his hearing tomorrow. Isn't he always after any excuse for an adjournment? What's the betting he uses the storm all week?

lottieandmia Sun 27-Oct-13 12:07:13

Oh yes, parents with limited resources are much more 'streetwise' than LEAs. It's really easy to fight the council(!)
angry indeed!

Do parents do tribunals for fun then? Do they have time on their hands to hang about the 'streets'?

And so what if they ARE informed. It isn't their fault if LA's who are paid to be aren't.

This attitude explains an awful lot about why the laws are often flouted and then flouts supported by those charged with policing. It is obviously a belief of those in the system and policing it that LA's are the victims of 'streetwise' parents.

2tirednot2fight Sun 27-Oct-13 13:16:28

This wouldn't be in relation to a pathfinder authority would it?

inappropriatelyemployed Sun 27-Oct-13 13:19:44

I think it is just much easier for people to think they are doing an 'honourable' job if they try and characterise those parents who take them to Tribunal as streetwise, middle class, pushy parents wanting something more than they are entitled to.

But the sad fact is that many don't pursue this route, not because they are more 'reasonable' but precisely because they don't know their rights or are exhausted or lack funding, support or advice.

But who is going to admit that to themselves?

lottieandmia Mon 28-Oct-13 09:15:57

I agree, inappropriatelyemployed.

nennypops Mon 04-Nov-13 08:31:54

Ever wondered about the enthusiasm for mediation displayed on that Twitter feed? Wonder no more -
http://essentialmediation.co.uk/
http://www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/essential-mediation

Have a look at the profiles of the "Team" and consider whether you would view them as impartial and independent.

inappropriatelyemployed Mon 04-Nov-13 09:45:26

Yes, I wonder if there would be such keenness for mediation by legally qualified mediators chosen by the PARENT?

TOWIELA Mon 04-Nov-13 09:53:12

ffs!

So mediation is total independent? Is it heck!

The tweets from this lawyer has been driving me nuts all week.

senmerrygoround Mon 04-Nov-13 10:15:32

Just read the profiles of the team, and it is quite clear who they're selling their service to!!!

For someone with a 1st Class degree in education, the first profile is appallingly badly written shock

inappropriatelyemployed Mon 04-Nov-13 10:22:09

I think there is a real role for mediation if:

(i) the mediators are legally qualified
(ii) they are not answerable for results to the LA
(iii) they are not concerned with LA policies and only the law

The naff fluff, reliant on LA payment and implementing LA policies as law, that passes for mediation is not good enough.

Let LAs sit in a room with someone they cannot control and explain their prevarication and delay and their unlawful policies. Let the mediator report with recommendations to the Tribunal too.

nennypops Mon 04-Nov-13 11:27:19

Sorry, should have linked those urls -
essentialmediation.co.uk/
www.companiesintheuk.co.uk/ltd/essential-mediation

At least one of those supposedly neutral mediators currently works very actively with BS defending LAs, a fact which seems to have been glossed over on the site.

inappropriatelyemployed Mon 04-Nov-13 11:31:44

Incredible!

ouryve Mon 04-Nov-13 11:37:46

Just wow :/

And back to IE's point from a whole week ago, I have no idea how the average parent would even know where to start with Tribunal. It's a hugely daunting process.

Direct payments for mediation services.

nenny, I could have guessed of course but how on earth did you think to look into it?

Testing

Can't post from most devices for some reason but wanted to say that companies use twitter to market themselves and the tweets reflect their business plan not what is ethically, morally or even legally right or sensible.

nennypops Mon 04-Nov-13 23:14:20

Can't claim any credit for looking into it, someone passed it on to me.

OMG!!!

I just looked at one of those links and recognised one of the people from my past life hell.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Nenny, don't suppose you could pm me who passed it to you!?

'At least one of those supposedly neutral mediators currently works very actively with BS defending LAs, a fact which seems to have been glossed over on the site.'

And the other used to send vast quantities of tax payers money to BS as a senior LA employee!

MariaNoMoreLurking Tue 05-Nov-13 00:07:02

The second company used to be registered at a particular address, has assets of £1 (as of aug 2013) and MS is the director.

The workers at the first organisation must be exceptionally talented at remaining impartial. Their extensive experience will be a great help to families.

MariaNoMoreLurking Tue 05-Nov-13 00:07:53

Star, read your pm

MariaNoMoreLurking Tue 05-Nov-13 01:01:46

Not legal, but I'd guess either sleeping partner or managing accountant

MariaNoMoreLurking Tue 05-Nov-13 01:17:39

Still no legal diploma grin but think I've cracked it. Does the registration paperwork for company set-ups then hands it all back over to the 'real' company owners.

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?s=9e6eb3eb369548dfff6baca33350c8dd&t=231023&page=2

http://www.formationsdirect.com/

inappropriatelyemployed Tue 05-Nov-13 23:10:14

Why do you want to know Star? Is it connected to the formation of the mediation company?

Companies are often bought 'off the shelf' and then the details are changed.

Even on the meditation company's site they are totally clearly pro LA.

Have they been tweeting?

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now