……………….

NSPCC wrote
at 22:55
NSPCC response:
The NSPCC would like to clarify its position regarding home education. The statement issued by the NSPCC when the review of home education was announced made iit clear that the NSPCC wishes the review to balance parents’ rights to home educate their children with the local authorities’ duty to safeguard children and the child’s right to protection. We sincerely regret any misunderstanding caused by the quote attributed to Vijay Patel in the Independent. The reference to Victoria Climbie was meant to illustrate the point that she was killed at home out of sight of the authorities. It was not intended to imply that Victoria was educated at home or that home education was in any way connected to what happened to her. We are writing to the Independent to clarify our position on this important point.

…………………………………………….

i hope it contains a whopping apology and retraction completely, as not overwhelmed by their not-quite-apology!!! I am just NOT satisfied. though am impressed by the people power leading to a response on facebook.

in the independent article, Mr Patel is quoted as saying

-Vijay Patel, policy adviser for the NSPCC children’s charity, also sees the
need for a review. “Some people use home education to hide. Look at the
Victoria Climbié case. No one asked where she was at school. We have
no view about home education, but we do know that to find out about
abuse someone has to know about the child.”-

Looking at the Victoria Climbie case she was neither hidden nor home
educated, and one of the agencies singled out for criticism in this case is
the NSPCC.

In fact, in a previous appearance on the Jeremy Vine show to speak
against home education, Mr Patel admitted that the NSPCC did not hold
any information or evidence that would suggest that home educating was a
risk of abuse.

How can you assure or reassure me that there will be any fairness or
validity in the review, when the experts asked to assess the case are
clearly biased against home educators and promulgating the concept of
home educators as abusers with either no or fabricated evidence.

Please could you ask Mr Badman to include on his panel people with
knowledge of Home Education, and not so obviously opposed to elective
home education. At present I cannot see the validity of this review, and I
am concerned that my childrens’ wellbeing will be jeopardised by an ill
informed, biased review team who are reviewing poorly written questions in
an ill conceived and unfairly shortened review.