Article on the BBC website this morning

(8 Posts)
Nigglenaggle Fri 23-Sep-16 11:12:30

I appreciate what they say the law is intended for. No one wants children radicalised eh? However I don't believe it wouldn't be abused. The burkini ban was allegedly to target extremism eh? But it still resulted in innocent women being forced to strip in public, by armed men. The world is a scary place at the moment and the media have it that forces everywhere are trying to take away our liberty and way of life. I don't think that should be an excuse to do the job for them.

OP’s posts: |
Dontyouopenthattrapdoor Thu 22-Sep-16 20:46:54

It's more to combat illegal home-based "tutoring centres" that don't register as schools but teach radical religious extremism.

Loobylu44 Tue 20-Sep-16 20:40:54

Right for their children

Loobylu44 Tue 20-Sep-16 20:33:32

Exactly which is why the safety net needs to extend to all children not just some. It just annoys me that home ed is seen as some sneaky off the radar thing that it isn't. Really its about people choosing for what they believe is beat for their children.

Saracen Tue 20-Sep-16 19:19:44

"There are no cases to my knowledge of home ed kids being abused??"

No, of course there have been cases of HE kids being abused. What's never yet been seen is a case which has been made public in which those children weren't already known to SS. There is no evidence that home educated children are any more "hidden" than children who go to schools. A cunning abuser will have no difficulty hiding the evidence of abuse from someone who breezes into the family home once a year. Where the evidence of abuse is more blatant, it will have been noticed by relatives, neighbours, and doctors at least as easily as by some LA "inspector".

In short, the proposals are "solving" a problem which doesn't exist. You might as well decide to inspect the homes of everyone whose surname begins with the letter H.

Loobylu44 Tue 20-Sep-16 17:54:38

There are no cases to my knowledge of home ed kids being abused?? If the government want rights for social services to enter homes then it should be all homes surely?? Its like saying you can stop, search and question home
Ed parents but not schooled kids parents! I really feel passionately about children being safe and looked after but get sick to death of all this one rule for home ed and one rule for others. What about the very well documented high profile child abuse cases we all know about? Pretty sure they ALL took place under the noses of social services who were involved but unable to act? As a teacher i have reported what i consider to have been highly suspicious cases to the MASH team who listen very carefully- then do nothing at all. It seems to me that in the absence of actual evidence that something dreadful has happened already nothing gets done. Its a load of crap to keep on about rights to enter houses etc. Home ed is about just that, i am not sure that the continuos suggestions about abuse are really helpful.

Jaimx86 Sun 18-Sep-16 21:51:10

I think it's to protect children who may be being neglected, or radicalised, at home.


Nigglenaggle Sun 18-Sep-16 10:42:59

Erm power to enter homes of home educated families would be useful would it councils? You can fuck off would be my first thought! How is that acceptable? Sorry can't link but article in the education section of BBC news.

OP’s posts: |

Join the discussion

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet

Already have a Mumsnet account? Log in