Letter to the Independent; Graverobbing by the NSPCC

In the education section today, I witnessed a particularly odious example of grave robbing. It was all the more revolting for being prepetrated in the name of a group that could have saved the life of the very child that was being robbed.
In the article "Is the Government right to be concerned about home-schooling?", the NSPCC representative Vijay Patel said:  "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."
Firstly, Victoria wasn’t electively home educated: the local authorities had not been able to find her a place at school, making her stay with an unstable, unsuitable relative.
Secondly, her daily whereabouts were known to many agencies including the NSPCC.
Thirdly, the NSPCC was gravely criticized at the time of the enquiry for not only failing to protect Victoria, but also for altering evidence to cover up their culpability.
Vijay Patel is robbing the grave of a child that the NSPCC failed to save. He is doing this in order to make a grab for power for his organisation in an attack on a minority group, a group for which there is no evidence of a problem concerning child abuse or neglect.
Mr Patel has been asked to present what evidence the NSPCC has that home education is or has been used to conceal neglect or abuse.
Such evidence has not been forthcoming.
The only thing we get is a regurgitation of a twisted version of the tragedy of Victoria Climbié, and a wilfull misinterpretation of the Eunice Spry case. Spry was regularly visited by the authorities, who were alerted to the possibility of abuse over a ten year period, yet did nothing.
If anything these cases demonstrate that oversight by authorities does not prevent abuse, but can give the abuser a sense of official license to abuse.
If visibility (which is something children outside of school during school hours have a great deal of) prevented neglect or abuse, then no school child would be abused or neglected. This is, sadly and obviously, not the case, especially where the school environment is either the cause of, or complicit in, the abuse.
Barnardo’s have already withdrawn from this review, as they recognise that it is outside their remit. Mr Patel and the NSPCC seem unable to see a tragedy that they cannot exploit for their own gain at the expense of the liberty of families.


2 thoughts on “Letter to the Independent; Graverobbing by the NSPCC

  1. Great letter. This whole situation is messed up beyond belief. I feel lucky that we’ve found a great school here in our area of the U.S. that actually is focused on making a great environment for the kids (even if we have to accept stupid things like Valentines for all, inclusion rules and other stuff). Due to sleep disorder issues with my daughter, we’re considering home schooling her once she gets to high school level, because here, the kids have to be on the bus at 7am to be at school for 7:30, so the buses can be used for the middle schoolers, and then the elementary schoolers. The school system is designed around transportation, which just boggles my mind. I’d rather have her sleep later at home and get the sleep she needs and then work less hours, but more quality hours, at home.

  2. Excellent. I may have my children in an excellent state school but I totally understand your right and need to home educate. NSPCC’s hypocrisy is nauseating.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s