All this fuss about giving money for colleges and getting a peerage, the talk of establishing academies, universities dropping pass rates to 26% and even the school that the parents bought because it had closed. All that – and the Opus Dei member is kept away from the public view. For once, thank you your Tonyness :) (or more likely your spin doctors)(and seeing as we’ve all forgotten her, sack her)(Ruth who?)
Today is “Go to work day” for the kids in P’s class. So those that can go to a workplace with a parent do so they can experience a bit of ‘work life’. Those that cannot for whatever reason get to stay in school. Even if J and me still worked in our previous jobs this would be a non-starter because of the nature of the people we looked after. So we gave P a choice: go school or stay at home. No points for guessing the choice.
But she needs to do something and J suggested that she see what I do. Cool – I can do that. I then launched into ‘Housework – a lesson’ and explained what needed doing, why, that it was a vital job that is much undervalued. I added that for me I also look after J which varies so what I actually do – if I were to be paid – is worth a whole heap of money. I tried to explain that just because someone goes out of a house to somewhere else and earns money doesn’t make what they do more important than what I do. It’s different (and in some cases other jobs are more important but you know what I mean) but it’s no less a job. (Even though it’s seen as much by everyone “Hey Mark, when you going to get a proper job then?”). So, having whetted her appetite for this important job, I proposed we get started. One good rolling of the eyes and a slumping at the table suggested I’d lost the argument.
J said why not see what I do on this machine so much. Okay – I can do that too. I explained about what I do for WordPress and why, I explained about FreshlyPressed and the differences between them and I talked about other stuff I do and that most of it is US-based so when she wonders why I’m still doing stuff at night she knows why. I think she sort of got all this. So then we came to Blogs. I tried to explain what blogs were and what wordpress.com was – “Is it like Myspace?” she says. “No” I replied, it’s better”" – and we talked about getting a blog. She’s not quite sold on this domain business (Cpanel at 12 years old? Not for her) so I mentioned wordpress.com again and explained about that in some more detail. So off we go…. the name she wants is available (no surprise given the name she chose), pw sent to my email and she logs in. She clicks around, changes a couple of things, gets a girly theme and then goes to edit the default post. She pauses …. and wonders what to write. So I talk about different reasons for blogging etc, the fact some people talk techy, some do recipes, some do work or other work stuff and some write anything at all (I used the word ‘garbage’ for here :) ). She gets the idea. Minute or so later she still hasn’t typed so I ask why – she replies “WordPress is for grownups”. (Need some colourful icons there Matt! – get’em when they are young). I thought this was amusing and no amount of explanation could remove this thought. Maybe it’s the formality of the layout.. whatever, she didn’t feel up to scaling the adult heights just yet. (Now if she’d seen some of the blogs there she’d not have that worry. I can’t wait for people to add – if they can – words like ‘l33t’, ‘hax0r’ and ‘t3h r0xx0r’ to inline spelling).
So off we go to myspace to illustrate the difference. Isn’t that place just so damn ugly? But hey, it’s sort of blogging. (And she’s now fully adblocked on firefox too). We lied to get a blog there just in case of age restrictions but we cannot have been the first. But…. she wrote less on myspace than she did wp.com. In fact she spent less time there too. Good stuff.
She decided that as a first day working a half day is enough and I’m not entirely sure she sees the point behind blogging (there is one?) or looking after domains (though she was very impressed when I told her all the countries where I’d installed WP for people. Hawaii got the biggest ‘Cool’.) but if she sees a little bit more of what I do, then that’s a result :)
Following a comment in #wordpress, and a previous observation some weeks ago on the same thing, I have a question. In English, which of these is correct:
What time is it ?
What time is it?
And why.
I am informed that this is supremely cool.
Apparently – and I’m not entirely sure where the idea for the ground-breaking decision came from – “Anyone convicted or cautioned for a sex offence against a child will be banned from teaching automatically”. Really ?
That just makes SO much sense to me.
Does it you ?
Isn’t it amazing that it has taken newspaper stories, parliamentary questions and political juggling to do something which is blindingly obvious to pretty much everyone else in the UK ? The actual question remember is not that they are not now allowed but who allowed this to happen in the first place ? Who decided that sex offences were not a bar to being in intimate contact with children. Who made that choice ? When ?
…had found 10 cases where registered sex offenders had not been placed on List 99 …………- since 1997.
Remember 1997 ? That was when Tony and his cronies came in to Parliament with the anthem from D:ream of “Things can only get better”. It would seem then that Tony wasn’t thinking of children… his govt, his record, his accountability.
Ms Kelly said there “must be no witchhunts against hard-working teachers”.
WHAT ? Who mentioned a witch-hunt ? No-one. Who is trying to divert our attention ? Ruth Kelly. Who is using language that implies those that seek information are doing wrong ? Ruth Kelly. Who IS wrong ? Ruth Kelly.
She told MPs she “deeply” regretted the concern caused to parents by recent stories of sex offenders in schools.
Has she said that she regrets the risks that were run ? No.
Has she said that she believes she was wrong ? No.
Does that wording imply that she actually regrets the revelation more than the circumstances ? Yes.
Ms Kelly said she was “determined… to lessen their concerns” and “overhaul” the system.
Resign or be sacked.
“Child protection is our number one priority, we have got to get it right.”
She said she was looking to take steps to make sure all sex offenders were barred for life from working with children.
WHAT ? It was up to HER to decide if this sex offender could have the job. SHE could have said NO. SHE could have protected children at that time. SHE decided it was perfectly fine for this sex offender to work with children. It was HER choice. SHE has only changed her mind because of the furore and if she was so damn convinced she had got it right then she should have stood her ground.
Ruth Kelly got it hugely wrong.
Ruth Kelly ignored the Police.
She should be sacked.
What she said to Parliament today:
The case which has come to public attention this week raises very serious issues.
Really ? Wonder why ? and it was YOU who caused this.
I take full responsibility for all decisions taken in the department on whether individuals should be placed on List 99, the list covering those barred from working in schools.
So leave your job then. Do the decent thing.
Initial inquiries indicate that there have been a small number of cases where, on the basis of advice, in accordance with the process that has been in operation for many years, ministers have made the decision not to include on List 99, an individual on the Sex Offenders Register.
We are searching for a better excuse, but right now we are going with “It’s happened before so why not let it again”. Ruth Kelly – when was the last time you had an independent thought ? You know, one you made yourself, all on your own ?
It is of the utmost importance that the House and wider public are not misled by any information put into the public domain.
I used to have a boss like this. She always said “But you aren’t in possession of all the facts” and we all knew she was lying. This is Ruth Kelly pretending she has a great big secret which would fully justify everything she did but as we cannot know ….
I will also review the decision making process surrounding such cases and any immediate policy implications.
Would it surprise anyone if we were not reassured by this ?
In the meantime, with immediate effect, I will personally consider any cases of individuals on the Sex Offenders Register where a ministerial decision is required as to whether they should be placed on List 99.
And if they do offend I’ll be sure to blame the Police or someone else for not giving me all the facts.
Make our schools safer places – sack Ruth Kelly
Education Secretary, Ruth Kelly, had approved the appointment of a registered sex offender as a PE teacher.
What in HELL does that stupid bloody woman think she was doing ?
police, who believed he had accessed paedophile websites
She let this man work with children ? And she was deliberately allowing him to be in a situation where children would be in a state of undress and vulnerable ?
Secretary of State for Education had ‘considered all aspects of the case, including sex offender registration, and decided that the risks of the teacher being allowed to continue teaching were acceptable’.
You can bet they weren’t her damn kids can’t you…
There have been suggestions that she believed the evidence against the man was inconclusive.
I don’t give a flying one what she – in her ivory-bloody-tower – thought. Don’t you think she should have listened to the police ? They had
deep reservations that their risk assessment was overruled.
This woman was first elected and then put in charge of the education of the future of the country by Tony “Let’s just forget Iraq” Blair and she then decides it’s perfectly fine to let a convicted sex offender work with children. Is that an action that can be condoned by anyone ? At all ?
Her action is indefensible.
Sack her.
That’ll be the one trying to get parents to stop their primary school kids from watching (the brilliant) Little Britain.
I know a couple of teachers and they are wonderful people but sadly this idiot will get teachers branded as humour-free zones. I think children should be actively encouraged to watch comedy – and that includes Little Britain. Why ? The main reason is that it might make them laugh. There’s enough doom gloom misery and foreboding oozing continually from our screens – or that scuzzy daytime TV crap – so why shouldn’t kids have a chance to laugh at things ? why can’t they smile and repeat such antics and accents in front of their friends ? Why can’t they be challenged by that humour ? Why can’t that humour be used as a basis for discussion ? Or maybe the headteacher just doesn’t like top comedy show ? Isn’t humour part of the OFSTED world anymore ? Jeez, they’ll be banning Santa next (I’m sure somewhere has). A note:
Dear Lynne Hargreaves,
You don’t tell parents what to do in their own homes and I’m sure they won’t start telling you how to run a school.
Thanks,
A Parent.
Two example problems.
The squiggly lines are square root. The power is 2 in both cases.
Is it possible to explain those two ‘sums’ ? I am finding them incomprehensible.
