| Archive for NEEPS North East Eco-friendly People's Site |
| Maria |
Childcare help could be illegalhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8277378.stm
|
||||||||
| Maria |
Is 'the state' able to make sensible decisions on our behalf anymore. Was it ever able to? I am perplexed. | ||||||||
| Smooth Hound |
seems a it over the top | ||||||||
| Fia |
Methinks there's more to this than meets the eye...
How did Ofsted get involved? The state, and its quangos, have nothing to do with private arrangements, which imho seems in this case to be women doing what we do so well - co-operating. Only if they were trying to claim childcare costs should Ofsted have any input... the real story is doubtless well different from that reported, the mail group of newspapers has it's own agenda and i would recommend stories generated from them treated with a very large pinch of salt... |
||||||||
| lachlanandmarcus |
so on the one hand the Govt wants women out at work, not with their children, and on the other hand, doesnt let them look after each others children informally.
If its not for money and its mums doing it then I dont believe it should be regulated. The risks of abuse from women and particularly mums is tiny, the legislation should be covering the risky situations. TBH I dont think its any of the governments business! |
||||||||
| baldowrie |
more nanny state!
I agree with Fia there is more to this. OFSTED look to me to have operated outside their remit. And how did they find out? Someone has a grudge clearly |
||||||||
| lachlanandmarcus |
OFSTEDs remit has recently been widened to cover all the care services as well as the education they did before. So it could be within the new remit.
Agree someone must have triggered the investigation....nice :-( |
||||||||
| Sunflower |
There's an article on the bbc news site here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8277378.stm I find the whole story horrible on many levels, from the amount of money Ofsted must be wasting on this, to the fact that someone obviously reported them, and the implications of the whole thing. At least a review has been ordered and people are challenging the situation as it is.. |
||||||||
| baldowrie |
apparently is was one of their neighbours...I suspect this neighbour would not be adverse to making other complaints and nuisances for these women either.
Some people have nother better to do other than try and make anothers life a misery! |
||||||||
| lachlanandmarcus |
lets hope their neighbour lives a life entirely without blame or transgression of any civil or criminal law - which is pretty hard under this governments sloppy lawmaking, I reckon everyone is a criminal these days whether they know it or not! 
|
||||||||
| Julie |
I reckon this story might have legs.
It is a stupid rule as it is nigh on impossible to police it effectively. Imagine the chaos and the knock on effect on businesses everywhere if all these parents suddenly found they couldn't get into work as they no longer had anyone to mind their children. IMO, the best person to decide who is fit to mind the children is their own parents. |
||||||||
| IainC |
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8303366.stm
MP in common sense shocker 
|
||||||||
| baldowrie |
cough!  and just who do think set this 'law' up without proper thought and clarification?
Opps was it Mr Balls under the guidance of the Badman? 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nieMyl5puAY So not such common sense though by Balls, but more a response to public out cry to him and his side kick. |
||||||||
| IainC |
Yeah, but for one of them to realise that it was stupid and to clarify that is a good step forward
|
||||||||
| baldowrie |
public pressure has more to do with it, and whilst every one is congratulating Balls on being 'sensible' he is slipping yet another invasion of privacy through under the guise of 'Every child Matters'. | ||||||||
| IainC |
What invasion of privacy... he's said that in cases where parents have worked out a system that benefits each other, it's nothing to do with the regulators... it's not just about that one single case.
As long as it's not for monetary gain, then it's got sod all to do with them. |
||||||||
| baldowrie |
Actually it comes under the Every Child Matters thing they are trying to put through..by they I mean Balls and the Badman as he is affectionately known!
They want complete control of your children. Home Educated parents in England and Wales will, if it goes through, be forced (yes police in attendance if the home ed liason person wants it) to allow the local authorities into their house and all children will have to speak to them WITHOUT a suitable adult with them.....not even the police are allowed to do that and yet they want to allow a LA rep with usually no experience and a hidden agenda to do it. Every parent, home ed or not, will be labeled as an abuser if they have their way and you will need to prove otherwise. And this is where the two items are linked as if you allow (until the back track opps sorry the clarifaction) your friend to look after your child regulary you will then have to be vetted to ensure you are 'safe', ie you are an abuser until you prove otherwise. All parents will have to register under 'Contactpoint', once again abuser until you prove otherwise. This is not currently happening in Scotland, but don't hold your breath it won't. If you don't belive it Google it. They hitting on the Home Ed groups firs,t because they usually don't have all the safe guards in places to prevent false allegations. Monetary gain has nothing to do with, it's control they want...nanny state and all that. |
||||||||
| IainC |
From the story I linked to...
"to make clear that reciprocal childcare arrangements between parents where there is no payment involved should not be a matter for regulation". "I have agreed today with Ofsted that with immediate effect, this will be beyond the scope of their childcare inspections and will make this crystal clear by changing the regulations in the coming period." ie they WILL NOT be regulating, visiting or generally giving a cr*p about you or your child. I can also see some good in at least checking on home schooled kids from time to time just to ensure that everything is okay, although I can see how someone would maybe feel that they were being accused of something (either abuse or just not teaching them enough). |
||||||||
| baldowrie |
Like I said google it...... http://www.independent.co.uk/news...ore-at-risk-of-abuse-1703220.html Incidentally all case Badman quoted where children in the school system. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychildmatters/ Which also means if you rush your child to A&E because they banged their head it will no longer be a judgement call by the Doctor whether or not Social Services are called. Contact mean they will know immediately and that will be on your child, and your, case records. http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/everychild...vices1/contactpoint/contactpoint/ |
||||||||
| IainC |
At no point does any of your links mention that home educated children are abused, etc, all it says is that there is a higher amount of abused children being educated at home. ie, there were no children that weren't already "under supervision" that were being home educated.
I also don't see what the problem is whether someone knows that your kid fell down and had to go to A&E. Even if it happened quite often (due to the little b*ggers playing on skateboards and/or BMX's) then a quick visit would soon sort out what the issue was and that would be it. The fact that your kid went to A&E would already be kept on his own medical records. |
||||||||
| baldowrie |
children under supervision (in other words on the child protection register) are not allowed to be home educated  ..........more anti home ed spin!
Graham Badman quoted in one of his first reports regarding the in adquates of home education and the higher than normal possible abuse cases that one case was such Victoria Climbie.....she was not home educated, she was in school and not been at school for a while so was a 'missing' child. The statistics quoted where all quoted without evidence and when challenged the majority withdrawn. Ask yourself why has the Scot Exc not gone immediately into this and agreed? |
||||||||
| Julie |
I don't see why any parent with nothing to hide would object to an occasional home ed inspection. After all, their childs future is at stake and presumably they want the best for their kids?
A support network with a remit to vet the childrens progress might be good propaganda for home ed if it works better. It would also rescue any child who's parents were not so good at doing the job. Imo, the kids future is more important than their parents aspirations. |
||||||||
| earthroots |
i would certainly object to a home inspection - not because I have anything to hide, but because i am keenly aware of the kind of postcode prejudice that home educators suffer from where under one authority you can be offered positive support and in another your family can be victimised and bullied by education officers who clearly have no understanding whatsoever of the whys, wherefores and benefits of alternative education styles.
I'd prefer to see state school inspections carried out by pioneers of alternative education, advocates of children's rights and, heaven forbid, children themselves - a report that would make very interesting reading indeed. |
||||||||
| Sassinak |
I'm sorry, but I'm with Julie on this one.
Schools and teaching staff are subject to inspections to ensure that educational and welfare standards are upkept. I don't see why anyone taking their child away from that system should be allowed to do as they please and not be inspected. I'm sure that most people who home educate do a splendid job and really have their child's welfare at heart. But there are going to be some parents who do not meet required standards and there have to be safeguards in position to catch this at an early stage. I hope that I am as intelligent and well educated as most of the members here, but I would doubt my abilities to give a fully rounded education in all subjects, because I know that I have blank spots in my interests and knowledge. With a child's future at stake I wouldn't be prepared to take that risk. |
||||||||
| earthroots |
I follow that logic in theory to the point of practice - I'm afraid the actual experience of families inspected by representatives of the same education system they felt the need to withdraw their children from is in the main pretty negative and has longterm consequences on their lives. Much has been done by the home ed communtiy to address this issue - resulting in the Statutory Guidance on home education which was issued by the Scottish Government in January 2008 and sets out the respective roles and responsibilities of parents, children and education authorities. But again so far we have the same problem that in theory it's fine - the local authorities just have to start practising! | ||||||||
| baldowrie |
That would be the same teachers that are inspected and that tried, and failed due to my son consultant continuously and strenuously refuting the claims, to make up charges of child neglect when I was considering removing him from school?
Yes schools and teaching staff are inspected but there is a whole side of this that is not reported through the media. There is a side that 99% of home educators I have seen , and the reason why so many take that route, which the child and very often the parent are dealing with lie after lie...you take a witness to school meetings is the advice given to you by organisations such as Parent to Parent,. Now why would that be? Why are so many home educating parents wary of their local authority? No it's not because they have something to hide it's because as earthroots has stated some local authorities, including my own that I had to take legal action against for their accusations, have a habit of making up ludicrous child abuse accusations and that is something that you only really hear about on the home ed circuit as it's not PC enough to go to print. They are very often unaware, or choose to ignore, the law. They very often threaten the parents to achieve their figures of getting the child back in school. The majority of home educators I have met haven't removed their children because they just want to. They have removed them because their child, the ones I know are special needs, have been bullied not only by pupils by these inspected teachers. They , including my son, have been bought near to suicidal thoughts because of the bullying. As for teaching, there is nothing to it especially now the internet is so quick. Your daughter sass is already teaching her twins. Just ask WG, Ina or Stonehead how intelligent my son is and how much he knows. It may not all be down in books and on paper, one of his main problems, but never-the-less he knows it. A good example is on a trip recently for schools and groups (we were only home ed group) a lot of school children sat fidgeting and being disruptive but when it came to questions they were silent, as we were told by the lecturers. The home ed children sat silently through the lecture and then when question time came a plethora of hands shot up from them and the questions shocked the lectures because of the intelligent content of them. They actually had to put a stop to the questions because of time limits. the lectures remarked after that they have never had such an interesting and intelligent session. Just to clarify one point I am sure that some home educators do abuse their children just as those that go to school however the point I made was that the figures Badman quoted were not backed up by evidence. The examples used to back the figures were not home educated children, they were children who were in school. Julie to clarify to you the main objection (remember this is in England and Wales at present) is the authority to enter your home by local authorities, like social workers but without the training, and interview your child ON THEIR OWN and without any adult being present. Young children who are often vulnerable and not understand what was being said to them. Children who will be interrogated by someone whose aim is often to 'prove' that no education is taking place and the child at risk. Would you allow your child to have this done to them? Not even the police are allowed to interview a child or vulnerable adult without an appropriate adult being there so why should the local authority be allowed to? I incidentally have one child I home educate and one who is is school because that's what suits the individual child! The case of the police officers and the stupid 'offence' they were committing is all part of this thing Every Child Matters. The local authority were acting on the guidelines of that policy. Now whether or not they correctly interrupted it of not is debatable, personally I don't think they did but they just picked on the wrong pair this time. The question is how many have already been victimised and not been reported in the media? But that high lights just how the local authorities act and how (possibly) they are ignorant of the law and just how they treat home educators regardless if they have a case or not. |
||||||||
| andybebbington |
No body and i MEAN nobody is labelled an abuser unless there is sufficient evidence to back it up what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty |
||||||||
| andybebbington |
were on these links are you getting your evidence from? |
||||||||
| IainC |
I would have thought/hoped that the outcome would have been the same regardless of the occupations of the women involved... remember that the case is about childcare, not home education anyway, although I would also have hoped that anyone checking into a home ed case would deal with it in the same way. I certainly know that if anyone wanted to speak to my kids alone, they would be told to FO... they could talk to them with someone else present that *I* trusted if they wanted to speak to them without me or my wife being present though. I would imagine that the main issue with it, isn't really to do with the laws as they are, but the people who are implementing them... you get "power hungry" people in all jobs... I've certainly met a couple of coppers who were getting off on a power trip, whereas I know plenty more who are "normal"
I'd also imagine that some of these people doing the checking, are trying to keep as many kids in "proper" education for whatever reasons. |
||||||||
| baldowrie |
WRONG! I was by one school and they tried to make a case out of it until my sons consultant stepped in. Had she not I would have had a very hard fight on my hands. The charge? Starving my son because he is thin. Starve???? You should see how much he eats, he cost me a flipping fortune in food! There are certain local authorities that will send a child protection flag up as soon as someone decides to home educate...and yes I know who they are and some that have been affected and no I won't naming them due to data protection etc. And those sayng there is no smoke without fire my lovely neighbour made a report to social services because my son behaves differently, he is autistic. Social serives made one phone call and dropped the case. I have spoken to the social worker conserned and she has absolutely NO intentions of making a case of even coming out to me UNLESS I want her to. My neighbour made a further accusation to the poice who happened to be at my house at the very time she called on something she had done to my son. The police officers practically went into uncontollable laughter at the ludicracy of the accusations as they happened to speaking to my daughter at the time and remarked how well adjusted she was. So there you go you do get labelled as an abuse without evidence, even when the evidence has proven otherwise, by schools and local authorities.
In an ideal world it would!
And there lies the problem if you were to do so you will be arrested if it goes through as it is, just as if you refused entry to a social worker. The two, as I keep saying are linked, by the Every Child Matters Andy I have to trawl through a lot of web sites, thousands to be exact, to find the specific quotes so will take some time to find. But suffices to say the home ed circuit is fully aware of them. the BBC won't print about it...they are very anti home ed http://www.telegraph.co.uk/educat...on-crackdown-over-abuse-fear.html Read this report..gone from a large protion of home ed abusers to a small amount  and on top of that social workers starting that home edding is not a necessarily a cover for abuse...just one too busy to find the much earlier ones at present.
|
||||||||
| andybebbington |
is this not a good thing ? surely being on the register suggests protection is needed most kids on it need protection from some thing at home so home education is not going to help any child in this case
I dont like the use of the word witness this indicates that they are there to back you up in court when you sue schools. "Witnesses" are there for several reasons, they are a second pair of ears they are able to help both parent and teacher understand were the other is coming from they can be there for support if thing get emotional they can help you remember what what said at a meeting especially if you have been angry or emotional its amazing what you forget in a short time were as as "witness" can help you remember. they can take note for you they can calm things down if things get heated they are not just there to back you up when you have a complaint they can also back up the teacher/school i have been a "witness" at meetings with schools and sometimes it has taken me as the"witness" to be the one to get the point over to the parent/carer as they did not understand what was being said and i could explain things for them in a way they could understand
Near suicidal thoughts? you either have them or you don't, There are many more reasons to home educate than bullying eg some of the home educated kids i have met were home educated because they were kicked out of schools for being disruptive. some were unable to get a place at a school suitable to the childs needs, some because the parents wanted to educate at home as they believed it was a better education and yes there is one child i know of home educated because of alleged bullying
firstly no one with out training will be doing this ! You can insist on an independent adult being present, and no child can be questioned with out the parents consent. yes children may be vulnerable and not always understand what being asked but the interviewer will be trained to ask questions in a way that a child can understand and answer. If i was home educating and had nothing to hide then i would have no problem in my child being questioned by authorities - they can get questioned by them at school aswell with out there teacher being there ! I agree with Sass and Julies comments on home education if your doing a good job then would you not be proud to of been inspected and told your doing a good job, Inspectors are not there just to find faults - they can offer guidance and offer assistance. I am not against home education but believe if it is done it should be done right. And if not then intervention is needed. i have met kids that have been home educated that have been held back and dont get the education they need. In these cases inspection would of been a good thing as it might of bucked up the home educator into teaching properly or realising they were not up to doing it themselves and sending there child to school |
||||||||
| IainC |
They can come and arrest me then... see if I'm bothered... with a bit of luck, the police coming to arrest me would be the same as the ones who you dealt with and realise WHY the other person was being refused access on their own... I would do the exact same to a social worker as well, or in fact anyone who wanted to have a private word with my child on their own. |
||||||||
| andybebbington |
I think here that its peoples lack of understanding that causes allegations but with explanation it does not take long for them to understand. Just because someone made an allegation against you you dont end up labelled an abuser. Does the first neighbour still think your an abuser now that the social worker has talked to them? |
||||||||
| andybebbington |
no one can gain entry to your home with out permission weather its the athorities,social work dept or the police if you say no then no means no, if they want access and you say no then they need a court warrant befor they can enter and that will only be given if there judge is given sufficiant evidance that entry is required. If you say no to a stranger talking to your child alone or only with out a independent person being present then they have to observe your wishes |
||||||||
| baldowrie |
See point 2.6 .http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/consultati...20WORD%20consultationDocument.doc We believe that local authorities should interview children within 4 weeks of home education starting, after 6 months has elapsed, and thereafter at least annually to assess the quality of education provided and ensure that children are safe and well. The local authority should visit the premises where education is conducted, and question the child about the education provided, although at least 2 weeks notice should be given before the visit is conducted. The local authority should have the right to carry out the interview without a parent being present, if this is judged appropriate, or alternatively if the child is vulnerable or has particular communication needs, in the company of a trusted person who is not the home educator or parent/carer and just who decides it's appropriate..it won't be the parent will it. And yes my neighbour still strongly believes I am abuser and tells every one she can so to, but then she has other 'issues' regarding me. |
||||||||
| baldowrie |
sorry but some will refuse to understand even when doctors police and social workers 'explain' things to them..they have an agenda and want to stick to it. Oh and also when threaten with court action if they continue their unsubstantiated accessions, yes that includes local authorities [url]Near suicidal thoughts? you either have them or you don't, [/url] saying over and over agian I want to die and kill me please counts I think! [url]is this not a good thing ? surely being on the register suggests protection is needed most kids on it need protection from some thing at home so home education is not going to help any child in this case [/url] at no point have I suggested others wise but what I have said that some local authorites will try and get the child onthe register without evidence to prevent home edcation, even when their no evidence of abuse. |
||||||||
| IainC |
I feel that it would be unfair on the home ed children if they WEREN'T checked at least once a year by someone to ensure that they were learning at the same (or better) rate as the school kids... also your post says interviewed on their own if appropriate, I'd imagine in most cases they'd never even ask to interview the kid on it's own, it's purely there as a get-out clause if they are dealing with someone who is abusing the child (the abuse could be lack of teaching as much as physically/mentally abusing them IMO). As for your neighbour, if she's shouting her head off to everyone about you, then either you are an abuser  or more likely there is something far wrong with her instead... most other people will see that if they deal with her often (as the police you mentioned did).
|
||||||||
| IainC |
I think that's the point though... it's the individual people who are enforcing the rules, etc that are the problem, not the rules as such themselves. For example, I'm effectively on call 24/7/365, and in most cases respond to any issues as they happen... technically speaking though I'm only employed for 8hrs a day... if I was to take it to the letter, then anything stopping everyone from working, would just need to wait until tomorrow when I got in. That's what some of these people are doing, they are just applying the full letter of the law ('cos in most cases they won't have the common sense to see which bit will/won't apply). |
||||||||
| baldowrie |
But then again Iain we are back the senario of the police officers of the local authority 'misunderstanding' the legistration.
Yes neighbour has issue's and has been warned by those they complain to now I believe as I heard on the last public rant.... more annoyance than anything as I have to spend days/weeks dealing with it rather than educate my son! Think you will find that most, not all, home edder would allow checks if they could trust the person who came to check them not bend the truth....but also that happens far too often to too many people |
||||||||
| baldowrie |
[quote="IainC
[url]is this not a good thing ? surely being on the register suggests protection is needed most kids on it need protection from some thing at home so home education is not going to help any child in this case [/url] at no point have I suggested others wise but what I have said that some local authorites will try and get the child onthe register without evidence to prevent home edcation, even when their no evidence of abuse.[/quote] I think that's the point though... it's the individual people who are enforcing the rules, etc that are the problem, not the rules as such themselves. For example, I'm effectively on call 24/7/365, and in most cases respond to any issues as they happen... technically speaking though I'm only employed for 8hrs a day... if I was to take it to the letter, then anything stopping everyone from working, would just need to wait until tomorrow when I got in. That's what some of these people are doing, they are just applying the full letter of the law ('cos in most cases they won't have the common sense to see which bit will/won't apply).[/quote] Totally correct...I am currently abusing my son in making him tidy his bedroom
|
||||||||
| IainC |
They never stay tidy though do they... I spent ages with our two getting theirs tidied out, the very next day when I looked in you couldn't see the carpet for toys and clothes again. | ||||||||
| baldowrie |
oh so true, now where's my whip?
only joking my children are not hit in any way shape or form |
||||||||
| Sassinak |
I can see why they would want the ability to interview a child, without the parent being present, if necessary.
I know of a young boy who is self haming.He said that his father was aware of what he was doing, but did nothing. Social services were quietly told of this and went to interview him - with the father present. He was asked if he ever hurt himself and the father immediately said 'You never do anything like that do you? Just tell them so'. The boy denied doing anything at all and no further questioning was done. I think there would possibly have been a different outcome if the overbearing presence of the father hadn't been there. |
||||||||
| IainC |
Mine would be if only I could catch them
|
||||||||
| Julie |
I think a child has the right to be seen without a parent present. Some parents can be controlling - especially if they are abusive parents. How can a child safely ask for help if the person they most fear is sat beside them.
Again....those with nothing to hide need have no fear about what their child might say about them. Personally, I would feel safer with the risk of being accused of coercing my child out of the picture. Also, kids aren't stupid - and if they are, they need extra tuition of the kind offered by a special needs support unit in school - but they are not going to make up bad stuff about the people they love the most. |
||||||||
| baldowrie |
I take it that's a joke right? Just like it rarely happens in practise just like the support of vulnerable adults
No but a child, particularly if young or special needs can be coerced into saying things they don't want to just like adults can be and they don't need to be 'stupid' for that to happen |
||||||||
| baldowrie |
oh and just to add from the mouths of the special education teacher at my daughters school 'there are no special needs child in Scotland therefore we don't have the unit open for them' and was quoting from his directive from the Scots Exc! | ||||||||
| Julie |
Why the beligerence Baldowrie?
Not everyone shares your experience or your viewpoint. Waste of time discussing it when that's the response - PBS
|
||||||||
| zombiecazz |
I'm sure Baldowrie wasn't being beligerent. I can understand and fully sympathise with the comment and infact many of Baldowrie's comments.
I have experienced some of the things that Baldowrie has talked about. I took my DS out of school when he was in primary 3 as he was continuously being bullied by his teacher and head teacher. Why? well he's different. He doesn't fit that box that they wanted to put him in. What was so sad about it was that he was dying to start school, he was so very excited and he went to a school in Aberdeen for a year and did really well, but our local primary just killed any enthusiasm he had for school. We had him home educated for a year, did it all the right way and asked for help from the local authority and what did we get.......absolutley FA. Not one peep out of them. Anyway when we moved over to this coast, he went back to school and the nightmare started all over again. Any time we thought we had made progress, he got a new teacher or a change in management structure at the school or what ever. I have never had a more soul destroying and stressful experience than trying to deal with my DS's progress through the school system, the special needs care and the social work department of Aberdeenshire. I have huge admiration for any parent that takes on the role of home education. It can be a joyful thing, but requires time and dedication. I would have loved to do it, I have no doubt that my DS would have left my education with more than he left the school system with, but I had to go and earn our daily bread. I'm so glad that he is finally out of school and he can start to actually progress in life. He has a plan and he's working towards it. Finger's crossed.
|
||||||||
| baldowrie |
You just feel so powerless and you see your child utterly destroyed before your eyes.
and you will fully understand when I tell yesterday my son caught a football! 
I hope he achieves his dreams, the world is now his to live in. He may be classed as special needs but he is just special and needs understanding
|
||||||||
| earthroots |
In England and Wales the implication that home educators are abusing their children is made in that they are being forced to register their children with Contactpoint which will result in home visits and children being interviewed without parents being present. The only reason given is that they are home educated -
I agree there are situations where children have the right or indeed should be interviewed without their parents being present - but this is a social work issue - not an education issue - just because a child is home educated doesn't mean they should be put on the 'at risk' category - this is offensive and an invasion of our civil liberties - our right to choose a lifestyle that may not be 'ordained' by the state and our right to not be viewed as something to be suspicious of. To illustrate this point - those attending private schools don't have to register with Contactpoint whilst at the same time they are not subjected to the same inspections and standards as state schools. The children of 'celebrities' don't have to register with Contactpoint either. The policies of Every Child Matters and the database Contactpoint have very serious implications on our childrens rights and welfare - more far reaching than the home ed community - so far in Scotland we're safe but as a parent I feel it's very important to keep an eye on these developments - I know of several families choosing to move to Scotland rather than have their families subjected to the failings of these policy changes |