Lancashire Boy Living in "Terrorist" House

[OurBlanche]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-35354061

I am stuck between laughing at the fairly obvious error, "I live in a terrorist terraced house"

and being shocked that a 10 year old hears the word terrorist so often he can make this error.

Maybe I am most shocked that the school had to report this, that common sense was bypassed, that the law demands this.

Actually, having heard this a few moments ago, I am not really sure what / how I feel about this, other than shocked and bemused!

Teachers and police terrorising children. What a profession to be a jobsworth in.

To go with the police report I posted last night

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jan/21/lancashire-police-criticise-bbc-over-terrorist-house-story

Tl;dr

Wasn't just the "terrorist house" incident that led to boy being investigated, but a history of troubling content in his work. Also the boy and his family were not investigated as a risk for terrorism. Police allege that the BBC left out key details in the article and exaggerated the seriousness of the incident, damaging community relations

The report doesn't say there was a history of troubling content: it says "The police visit took place because of other worrying issues in the boy’s school work". Interestingly, the direct quote from the police linked to above says The facts are that a young person disclosed a worrying issue in his school work – not just that he lived in a “terrorist house” – and this was reported through the appropriate channels and subsequently a visit was undertaken by a neighbourhood police officer and a social worker.

So it seems to me that they visited because of (a) the "terrorist house" quote and the reference to an uncle beating him. However, as has been pointed out, he seems to be writing in the character of a fictional boy rather than himself, which is borne out by the fact that the police were happy after their visit. It does all look quite heavy-handed - I wonder whether the teacher spoke to him first to check what he meant? It also looks as if the criticism of the BBC on here isn't warranted.

I've just worked out what TL;DR means.

!!! How can you be sure of what it does/does not say if you didn't read it?

Especially as some of what it says disagrees with your post - e.g. the BBC didn't say that the family were investigated as potential terrorists!

James o Brian

Said the boy had also mentioned his uncle beats him ect

It's quite a sad state of affairs. I know a family who are now living as 'closet' muslims.

Tampon Lady, the point is that he doesn't live with his uncle and the reference to beating appears to be something he attributed to a fictional character and not something he claimed actually happened to him. But I'm sure James O'Brien enjoyed stirring things by economising with the facts.

Tl:dr doesn't mean they didn't read it - it means if you don't want to read it all here is a synopsis.

Oh! T'internet gave me To Long; Didn't Read.

And that particular synopsis was inaccurate anyway

Yeah well I think it's used differently depending on the context. So if someone posts a long post with no paragraphs you might put tl:dr
But if you post something It know is long you might put a synopsis at the end with tl:dr

Thanks! Every day is a learning day

pbs.twimg.com/media/CZO4VYqXEAAULCX.jpg
If you look carefully at answer no 1: it says ' I hate it when my uncle hits me' Not 'beats'
Now at the risk of being accused of being pedantic, I would say there is a great deal of difference between 'hitting' and 'beating'.
There is obviously a lot more to this story than meets the eye. I understand the local MP is taking up the case on behalf of the family.
This is, unfortunately, what happens when teachers are put in the position that the Prevent strategy demands. You will get many cases of better 'safe than sorry' which of course can be a good thing, but only if common sense prevails.

sorry been dealing with a very sick DS,
Of course I read the article, I was supplying my own synopsis of the article, I may have emphasised history, but the trend in your op and some of thread was that they just jumped on some poor kid because they was Muslim.

Even with the new anti radicalisation protocols, someone writing 'terrorist' house wouldn't warrant a school to enforce procedure and I would wager that a police visit isn't required on a first offence.

We are not that kind of police state (yet) and we will never know the full reasons behind this, but with the police report and basic reasoning ~~we~~ I am willing to deduce that the BBC where wrong to report it on the angle they initially did and I can say the same of you as well.

Excuse the wrong formatting for this forum.

So a few months ago the parents of the 3 young girls who ran off to Syria blamed the police and demanded an apology....

Now, the police are looking into every case and having to apologize again!

They can't win!

Crikey! That told me!

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/12132054/Organised-campaign-to-hobble-anti-terror-fight.html?sf20042275=1

*Investigations by the Telegraph reveal that several widely reported recent stories about Prevent are false or exaggerated – and many of the supposedly “ordinary Muslim” victims are in fact activists in the campaign, known as Prevent Watch. The stories include a claim which became a cause célèbre for Prevent’s opponents – that a Muslim schoolboy from London was “interrogated like a criminal” for using the phrase “ecoterrorism” in class. The boy’s mother, Ifhat Smith, who took the story to the media, presented herself as a traumatised ordinary Londoner. She is in fact an activist in the Prevent Watch campaign and a key figure in the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, which believes in replacing secular democratic government with Islamic government.

Prevent Watch heavily promoted a BBC story about a Muslim boy in Accrington, Lancashire, whose family was supposedly visited by police under Prevent after he wrote at school that he lived in a “terrorist house,” a misspelling of terraced house. Police said the visit had nothing to do with Prevent, terrorism, or the spelling mistake and was, in fact, carried out because the child also alleged that he was the victim of a violent assault. Clive Grunshaw, the Lancashire police and crime commissioner, has complained to the BBC about the story.*