Monday, March 12, 2018

Phoney Blair isn't a Philosopher King; he's an incorrigible nincompoop

I have to say: the self-appointed Philosopher-Kings of our age are, all things considered, a bit of a disappointment. Phoney Blair, for instance, Philosopher-King-in-Chief, claims to be a uniquely enlightened man of considerable erudition, tinged with a dash of urbane sophistication and the uncanny ability to header a football. He really is Narcissus-plus, ordained by God to understand things that us mere mortals cannot.

Since July 2016, this self-styled guardian of Kallipolis has gone into overdrive, desperately trying to reconnect with the plebs who voted to leave the European Union. Phoney is frantically running from television studio to radio studio, determined to change our minds but, failing that, willing to ignore our longing cries for self-determination and democratic accountability. You see, we don't understand these things, by all accounts. We don't know what's good for us. Philosopher-Kings like Phoney and his friends in Brussels are the only suitably qualified class of individuals capable of making judicious decisions. The rest of us are glaringly incapable. He's been to Oxford, after all.

Okay, Phoney doesn't say this in so many words, he's even happy to use the illusion of democracy to legitimise his actions when it suits him - as he did during his time in office -, but his thoughts, words and deeds since the referendum expose his previously hidden contempt for the electorate. We didn't know what we were voting for, apparently. He doesn't trust us, sees us as low-information halfwits and clearly regrets the extension of the franchise. How else can one explain his behaviour over the last 18 months?

But is this egomaniac capable of making decisions for us? Is he the Philosopher-King he purports to be? Well, judging by his track record, the answer has to be a resounding no. This is the man who gave us the dodgy dossier, mass migration and Gordon Brown's fiscal irresponsibility. Back in 2004, before the accession of ten new EU member-states, he reassured us - Remember?! -, based on his refusal to countenance temporary restrictions on migration from the new territories, that only a few eastern Europeans would make the journey to our shores - 14 years and 1 million Polish emigres later...

Honestly! How can he keep a straight face? And let's not forget his decision to give away Margaret Thatcher's hard-won rebate in exchange for reform of the CAP - something that - surprise, surprise - never happened. This bloke was a car crash, not an enlightened, wise philosophe.

Indeed, he's more akin to one of Plato's reviled sophists, more concerned with personal gain than any Socratic conception of justice. He charms and deceives, covets, courts emperors, rogues and potentates of all stripes before trousering their ill-gotten gains and filling his bulging coffers. In short, the man's a crook.

And now he has the audacity - as all crooks do - to claim special status, insult us and strive to reverse a democratic decision. Well, Phoney, I have news for you: you're not a Philosopher King; you're an incorrigible nincompoop. 

Sunday, January 21, 2018

Doomsayers like Hitchens need to stop sniping and support the Government's plan to leave the Single Market

Christopher Booker's weekly column in The Sunday Telegraph is a must-read - not only for his robust attacks on the climate change lobby and commendable support for the voiceless, unrepresented parents disgracefully separated from their children by overzealous and in some cases corrupt social workers, but also for his fascinating, fresh, unorthodox, albeit a little doom-laden views on Brexit.

This week, as a pragmatic eurosceptic, he continued to rail against the Government's approach and support the Norway-option. He argues that we should adopt membership of Efta when we leave the EU, thus remaining in the European free trade area, and goes on to claim that, should we take this eminently sensible option, we'd benefit from not having to abide by 80 percent of the laws made in Brussels. Apparently, he adds, most of the other 20 percent emanate from other supranational bodies like the WTO, meaning that, outside the Single Market, whether we like it or not, we'd still have to follow them anyway.

As I say, at first glance this all sounds eminently sensible. Peter Hitchens certainly thinks so. But it fails to acknowledge one important drawback. The free movement of people is a non-negotiable, unquestionable pillar of the Single Market, along with the free movement of goods, services, and capital. Macron himself admitted as much on Sunday morning's Andrew Marr show. Membership of Efta and full access to the European Single Market can only be granted if we continue to accept the free movement of people, he said, albeit not in these exact words. 

This is unacceptable to the British people. Perhaps the most important factor in our decision to leave the European Union was the desire to control our borders. Should we indeed join Efta and continue to accept open borders, many, including myself, will justifiably question the point of voting to leave in the first place, particularly if we still don't possess the most basic function of any sovereign nation: the power to decide who should and shouldn't enter one's country. When one considers this reality, Efta is clearly out of the question. 

But why is Christopher Booker, normally so forensic and judicious in his analysis, in denial about this? He's either kidding himself that Macron doesn't mean what he says, or views free movement as a price worth paying for the avoidance of what he refers to as a pending economic catastrophe. Either way, he's in denial.

First, from Donald Tusk to Jean Claude Junker, Angela Merkel to Emmanuel Macron, our antagonists are very clear: there will be no access to the Single Market without the free movement of people. We should believe them. Secondly, I suspect the British people, especially those forgotten, working-class Brexiteers struggling to make ends meet, with nothing really to lose, would risk a short-term economic shock for the pull of greater sovereignty and tighter border controls, even if Christopher wouldn't. They've been through the catastrophe of seeing their wages depreciate for years, after all, crushed under the sheer weight of an over-supply of unskilled labour from the continent. Christopher's 'long queues at Dover' seem like a small tremor in comparison, I wager.

For me, though, Peter Hitchens' position is particularly difficult to grasp. He's been both eurosceptic and against mass, uncontrolled immigration for as long as I can remember. But when he gets what he's always wanted, withdrawal from the EU, he complains about the way in which the decision was taken. He's opposed to referenda, apparently, because unwilling politicians can be left enacting policies they passionately disagree with. Sound familiar? He, of course, has a point here. But if we'd waited for a conventionally elected, eurosceptic government to withdraw from the EU based upon a manifesto promise, we'd still be waiting...and waiting...perhaps until 2118! Peter, you've got what you wanted in the only way possible. Stop moaning about it.

Moreover, after years of railing against uncontrolled immigration, how can you now support Christopher Booker's Norway-option? It means the continuation of open borders. This really is a contradictory position to take. The Government, for all its faults, is implementing something that you said you wanted: Brexit and an end to the free movement of people. Give credit - and support - where it's due.

Doomsayers like Christopher Booker and Peter Hitchens need to face reality, stop sniping and get behind the Government's plan to leave the Single Market.

Sunday, November 19, 2017

Is it me, or is Alastair Campbell the most loathsome creature on Earth?

Alastair Campbell is surely the most loathsome, objectionable character on the planet. I’ve just had the misfortune to witness him, on the Sunday Politics show, attempting to bully and intimidate the phlegmatic and unflappable Gisela Stuart during their debate on the merits - or otherwise - of Brexit. It was nothing short of a disgrace. He interrupted her incessantly – interruptions that, to her considerable credit, she calmly endured and insouciantly swatted away. This further highlighted the brutish mediocrity of her half-witted interlocutor.

He really is an awful human being. He simply can’t accept the democratic decision made by the British people on 23 June last year. He’s fuming. This anger, though, is perhaps forgivable. One can’t switch off one’s feelings and debate doesn’t stop after one vote, after all, as he’s so keen on telling us. What’s perhaps less forgivable is his dishonourable aim to thwart the will of the people and use any means, no matter how unpatriotic and underhand, to do it. Just yesterday he advised the Irish Taoiseach to ‘play hardball’ against Theresa May, his country’s Prime Minister. Then today he had the audacity to say that he loves Britain. Who does he think he’s kidding?!

Gisela Stuart rightly asked him whose side he was on. Do you even want a successful Brexit? she enquired. It appears that his every intervention is designed to undermine Theresa May and make her negotiations more difficult, thus the outcome less favourable to this country. Stuart wistfully urged him to work with her in the interests of the country. He refused point blank - in a typically surly, petulant grunt. Like his fellow Remoaners - Clegg, Clark, Adonis and Blair - he sides with our opponents in a determined effort to undermine the Brexit talks and get the worst possible deal for Britain. Only then, they perversely conclude, will the electorate change its mind, demand another say and this time vote the right way. In short, along with the rest of the Remainiacs, he is willing to damage his own country in a desperate bid to prove, to himself, if no one else, that he was right all along.

Of course, this all fits into a pattern of behaviour that screams Quisling. Whilst Director of Communications in Downing Street under Phoney Tony Blair, he contrived in the wanton destruction of our communities through mass, uncontrolled immigration – just to rub the right’s nose in it. It is no exaggeration to state that East London, where I live, has been ethnically cleansed of the white indigenous population as a consequence of his government’s policies – a government in which he wielded considerable power. It has become a country within a country.

And why? Because he despises Britain and wanted, with Blair, to radically remake it. It was to become a multicultural paradise, and, in true Marxist style, he was willing to break a few eggs to rustle up an omelette. What’s a bit of ethnic cleansing between friends? The folly and inhumanity are truly breath-taking.

Okay, I accept that the indigenous population of East London wasn’t violently forced to flee. But come on! If you love your community, why would you want to see it changed irrevocably by a massive, uncontrolled influx of non-English speaking, culturally alien foreigners? Indeed, why would you wish to stay and, in some places, hear the call-to-prayer five times a day? So really, in essence, these people were forced out, ethnically cleansed – not by the barrel of a gun, granted, but certainly by decisions made by Blair and Campbell’s Government.

To put it another way, when westerners encroach upon, alter and deface the habitats of ancient, settled tribes, forcing them to move on, it is rightly labelled as ethnic cleansing. Well, what’s happened in East London is no different, and the likes of Campbell are undeniably responsible. This wasn’t a small influx. It was a tsunami – a tsunami that, disgracefully, hasn’t been halted by the Conservative party - but that’s another story.

Campbell’s toxicity goes well beyond his obvious treachery, though. He’s also an amoral bully who’s willing to do anything to get his way. Just look at his treatment of Dr David Kelly back in 2003. This poor man was hounded by the attack dogs of the media, unleashed by Campbell himself, before, desperate, cornered and frantically hopeless, he took his own life.

This same blustering, quarrelsome, iniquitous, loathsome, emotionless bully was in full attack-mode today. Gisela Stuart deserves enormous credit for treating him with the contempt he deserves.

Monday, October 30, 2017

Victim-hood is Power

Counter-intuitively, ironically, being a victim is now incredibly empowering. If you can claim victim-hood at the hands of some, say, film producer, or perhaps an unshaven, slightly unprepossessing and uncouth male colleague or boss, even if you have no evidence to support your claim, in today's hysterical post-truth climate, you can have power over them. It's brilliant! And, as I said at the beginning, completely counter-intuitive. Nobody will suspect your motives. Of course, you do need to be a member of a designated, accepted and Guardian-approved victim-group first, but, if you are - perhaps you were born female, black, Muslim, disabled or gay (sorry, did I miss anyone out - I don't want to be lynched by the twitter mob) -, you've pretty much got it made. Shout 'Abuse!' or 'Discrimination!' and, for the most part, you don't have to prove a thing. You're automatically believed. Your targeted assailant is toast, finished!

So who are the real victims here?

Look, before all you uber-feminists start foaming at the mouth and go into paroxysms of anger-induced screaming, I am not suggesting for one moment that Harvey Weinstein is innocent. And if he is guilty of these abhorrent and unjustifiable acts, he should be punished accordingly. But surely it is not outlandish to contend that trial by media and our lazy rejection of healthy scepticism will lead to perverse, worrying consequences - consequences that will be felt for many years to come. If claiming victim-hood is advantageous - perhaps to climb the greasy-pole or rid yourself of an unwanted colleague - don't be surprised if more and more people make false allegations. Why wouldn't they?

At the same time, don't be surprised if the Guardian-decreed perpetrator-group (also known as white men) doesn't recoil and withdraw from any potentially problematic social interactions. Let's face it, in today's #MeToo climate, you'd have to be a brave man to ask a female colleague out for a drink, or even compliment her on a new dress, pair of shoes or hair style. The future, especially for young men, is bleak, full of anxiety, self-doubt and confusion. It's also bleak for women who enjoy male attention and a bit of mild, reciprocated flirtation - the majority, I suspect. We really are entering a new epoch in which mutual suspicion between the sexes is becoming commonplace, fun and flirtation a thing of the past.

Just to reiterate: this isn't a defence of Weinstein. It's merely a warning that renouncing our critical faculties because an accuser happens to be a member of a recognised 'victim-group', will have, and does have, dire consequences. It can turn the so-called victim into the abuser as fairness, justice and due process are surrendered to virtue-signalling and emotion. Even more worrying is the fact that it's turning the 'victim-group' into the 'abuser-' or 'perpetrator-group'. The roles are being reversed as women realise the power they now hold over men - the consequence of their coveted 'victim status'.

Some years ago, I was accused of misogyny by a colleague. My crime: I said, during what I thought was a friendly conversation, that I didn't enjoy watching women's boxing. Not particularly contentious, or so I thought. But my colleague, a twenty-odd year-old woman, had other ideas. She hounded me, said I shouldn't be teaching impressionable young girls, and made clear that she couldn't work with me - the result of my obvious sexism. From that day on, I became very wary of her. She seemed both unstable and malicious.

More to the point, though, was the fact that she seemed to recognise my discomfort around her, and clearly enjoyed it. On one occasion, whilst I was working late, she came into my classroom and criticised a decision I had made earlier in the day. I responded, but she, as ever, was persistent to the point of being aggressive. I eventually said that I'd like her to leave my classroom - she just wasn't willing to listen to my point of view and talked incessantly. It really was exhausting, especially after a hard day's teaching. But she refused to go and stood in front of my door, blocking my exit. It was just me and her. Everyone else in the department had gone home. I couldn't physically move her, so I sat down to demonstrate my passivity. We continued the heated discussion - me sitting down, her standing up - before, eventually, she left, on her own terms, of course, after she'd said everything she'd wanted to say, fully aware that I was distressed by her presence throughout.

In hindsight, I was the victim of an abuse of power. Shockingly, she was using her status as a woman to intimidate me, knowing that, being a man, I couldn't very well accuse her, a woman, of intimidation and abuse. As I said, women are members of an approved 'victim-group', whereas men, especially white men, are seen as natural abusers.

No wonder everyone wants to be a victim. To coin a phrase with a slightly Orwellian whiff, 'Victim-hood is Power'. Just because it's Orwellian, doesn't make it, in this instance, any less true.

Monday, October 23, 2017

Forget internment: we must show our humanity, empathise, turn the other cheek and love our enemies, even if they want to blow us up

Last week, on the Today programme, our wonderfully enlightened independent reviewer of anti-terror legislation invited us to welcome home Islamo-fascistic terrorists from their sun- and, let's face it, hate-filled holidays to Syria and Iraq - with, I have to say, very little in the way of questioning from the BBC's woeful interviewer.

That's right: we should thank Allah for their safe return and open our hearts to the poor, unsuspecting, brainwashed little cocks, naively persuaded to embark on a long and unforgiving journey to Raqqa. They didn't mean to slaughter, enslave and rape Yazidi infidels before their forced return to the cities and towns of their reviled homeland. We must try to understand their motives, apparently, before unconditionally reintegrating them. Bless their cotton socks.

Perhaps we should go to meet them at the airport, placards sporting messages like 'Welcome Home Muhammad', 'Cab for the Glorious Infidel-Slayer' and 'We've Missed You, Tariq'. I can see it now: Polly Toynbee and JK Rowling, hair covered by hijabs to show partial empathy with the returning mujahids, chanting solidarity before giving them a lift, via limousine - alcohol-free, naturally - to local government funded accommodation in Luton, Bradford, Leicester and Birmingham. There they'll leave them to spread the word of Allah - Syrian-style - and subjugate the white, atheistic, post-Christian, working-class, Brexit-supporting unbelievers. Meanwhile, Polly and JK will reluctantly return to their luxury mansions, far from the unquestionably benign consequences of their actions.

It really is a thought that warms the cockles of my heart. Forget internment; forget convictions; forget the safety of the law-abiding majority; we must demonstrate our humanity, empathise, turn the other cheek and love our enemies, even if they want to blow us up.

Sunday, September 10, 2017

Don't be fooled: schools are still plagued by bad behaviour and progressive dogma

‘The Totteridge Academy? Wasn't it called Ravenscroft school? Why have they changed the name?’ My Dad, a little perplexed, waited for a response as he gently pushed his indicator, turned left and headed toward Barnet High Street. ‘Didn’t you know, Dad?’ I sarcastically asked, shuffling my feet in the passenger seat. ‘If you change a school’s name, it miraculously becomes outstanding.’ He sighed.

In my view, this recent exchange laconically sums up the Government’s education reforms. They have rearranged the furniture, they have even fluffed up the pillows, but the ceiling’s still on the verge of collapse.

Yes, the new numerically graded, linear GCSE specifications in which all exams are sat at the end of the course rather than in modular installments throughout the two years, are tougher, more rigorous and, as a result, more valuable, as shown by a fall in the proportion of entries receiving top grades
But let’s not get too carried away. This, like changing a school’s name and calling it an academy, doesn’t fundamentally change what’s going on in the classroom.

Most Head teachers are still fanatically committed to ineffective, so-called progressive teaching methods despite the rigours of the new syllabuses – syllabuses that demand, more than ever, a more traditional teacher-led approach to pedagogy.

The Blob quite predictably overran the academies that were specifically designed to keep it at bay. Progressive teachers and educationalists regrouped, infiltrated academy chains and reasserted their stranglehold on the profession. They reaffirmed the illusory superiority of child-centred or discovery learning, where pupils are encouraged to learn independently, without being explicitly taught by an adult and, by extension, denounced any teacher with the temerity to stand in front of a class and impart knowledge. Of course, it doesn’t take the sharpest tool in the box to realise that without teacher-led lessons, kids simply can’t learn. That’s why we’re still ranked so low in comparison to our international competitors. According to the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), in 2015, the UK ranked 21st in the world for reading, 27th for maths and 15th for science out of 65 countries or regions.

The irony is that the so-called progressive methods responsible derived from the eighteenth-century philosopher Rousseau. He believed that children were infallible and, as such, did not need to be taught by venal adults guilty of their future corruption. He was anti-school, and, whether they’re aware of it or not, the vast majority of our teachers are intellectually guided by him - a misanthropist who believed that adults and schools were harmful. Just let that sink in.

So not only are teachers still forbidden from talking for more than 10 minutes, they are also subjected to daily abuse. Let’s not forget: kids are infallible, after all. Adults are objectionable monsters sent to corrupt them. They must be treated with the contempt they deserve.

According to a recent ATL teachers’ union survey, four out of 10 teachers have experienced violence from pupils in the last year. I suspect this to be an underestimate. In my experience, pupils are given license to verbally abuse and even physically assault teachers with impunity. That’s why there’s an ongoing retention crisis. Academies won’t solve that, and neither will new tougher exams.

In fact, without dealing with the root causes of our current malaise (poor behaviour and airy-fairy teaching methods) some of these changes will simply add to the crisis. Teachers are now expected to help their pupils successfully navigate more rigorous exams whilst still using ineffective child-centred learning strategies, in addition to continuing to be the subject of vilification and invective. Is that really going to help schools retain staff?

As if this isn’t bad enough, our schools, like our universities, are in the grip of censorious snowflakes determined to undermine free speech. Last summer, for example, after the Brexit vote, my young colleagues intimidated those of us who voted to leave the EU into silence. We felt it better (all two of us) to say nothing rather than incur their wrath. On another occasion, a colleague accused me of misogyny because I said, during what I thought was a friendly conversation, that I didn’t really like watching women’s boxing. These young teachers, just out of university, having replaced their exhausted predecessors, are happy to extol the virtues of their own right-on views whilst shouting down anyone who disagrees with them.

In class, their walls are adorned with pictures of Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and Mahatma Gandhi. Come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve ever taught in a school without a house, college or building named after Nelson Mandela. Margaret Thatcher, in contrast, is nowhere to be seen.

This is incredibly concerning. Children are being brainwashed into thinking that some things, whether they be people, places or ideas, are beyond criticism. Others, though, like Thatcher herself or, even worse, the dreaded British empire, are fair game. Perhaps even the very embodiment of evil.
This is going on in many of our schools today – you know, the places where we’re meant to open the minds of the young, not close them.

So, let’s not get too self-congratulatory. The Government has made some important and long-overdue changes, not least of all to our damaged and devalued qualifications system. We now, at long last, have qualifications we can trust again.

But don’t be under any illusions: our schools continue to be plagued by poor behaviour, ineffectual pedagogy that stunts the intellectual, social and cultural growth of our children and a climate of fear that forbids the pursuit of truth through free intellectual inquiry. The introduction of academies and more demanding GCSEs do very little to alter this fact, I’m afraid. The cancer is in the personnel, not the structures. Like I said: you can rearrange the furniture…

Monday, July 17, 2017

Headteachers are flouting the law to keep unruly pupils in school - against the interests of the terrorised majority

My niece is being bullied. She's been threatened and abused at school, on social media and even in her own home. Two weeks ago, the bullies screamed obscenities down the phone at her, in earshot of her distraught parents. The ring-leader and her malevolent sidekicks are serial offenders, from challenging backgrounds - by all accounts -  and on the local area watch list for shoplifting. My brother, her father, is going out of his mind. His daughter is hurting and, as any parent reading this will understand, he is hurting, too. Last week, and with the agreement of the school, she didn't go in at all. She simply couldn't face the abuse.

Her abusers, of course, had no such fears, even though they'd admitted to harassing her, and to circumventing her desperate attempts to block them on social media by setting up new accounts and continuing to hound her with abusive pictures and hurtful messages. It is terribly cruel, and my niece is both tormented and deeply upset, perhaps unalterably. It really is an awful burden for any young child to bear.

At every turn, her father has been ignored and fobbed off by the pastoral leader responsible for her safety, his daughter advised to make new friends - even though, through fear of being targeted next, the other children are reluctant to mix with her – and the perpetrators given ineffective punishments that, instead of getting progressively more severe, simply get repeated time and time again – a risible merry-go-round that renders the sanctions feeble and inefficacious.

Undeterred and angered by the school's inaction, my brother organised a meeting with the Headteacher, during which, to his astonishment, she couldn't even locate the school's bullying policy. When she eventually did, she was embarrassed to discover that it was out of date and should have been reviewed some time ago. She clearly didn't even know what was in it - a breath-taking oversight, especially when one considers the prevalence of mental health disorders linked to childhood bullying, and the high number of suicides committed by victims every year. (This, incidentally, and quite unbelievably, is a partially selective school with an outstanding reputation. Based just outside North London, it is feted by politicians and luminaries of all stripes. One well-known MP sent her son there.)

My brother rightly protested and made clear his view that the school was failing in its duty to protect his child. When he asked what the school intended to do regarding the bullies, the Headteacher initially refused to tell him, apparently due to pupil confidentiality. After he persisted though, insisting that any victim has the right to know the punishment meted out to their attackers, she reluctantly obliged. They were to be placed in isolation, for how long wasn't specified.

Anyway, the day after the sanctions were enacted, the girls continued to attack my niece. They clearly hadn't worked. Now she's refusing to attend school, quite understandably, her education disrupted by persistent abuse and recidivists determined to make her life a misery. More to the point, though, is the fact that they are being empowered by a school that refuses to effectively sanction them, even though, by the Head's admission, they have a charge sheet as long as her arm.

With this in mind, I read this week's TES. According to an article by Warwick Mansell, Headteachers are breaking the law to offload pupils with behavioural issues. Unable to provide the authorities with the evidence to support fixed term and permanent exclusions, they are unlawfully and informally pushing pupils out with managed moves and threats of expulsion - ostensibly, and rather selfishly, to improve their results and ultimately secure their positions.

Knowing the propensity of schools to bungle paperwork, I suspect that this is more the result of incompetence than any malign conspiracy to get rid of unwanted and unvalued pupils in a bid to improve headline figures. In other words, if schools kept accurate records and consistently followed clear behavioural policies, it is often the case that pupils unlawfully pushed out would've been legally and permanently excluded instead.

Indeed, whether pushing them out unlawfully or finally deciding to permanently exclude, most schools do it as a last resort.

In fact, in my experience, Headteachers are flouting the law to keep unruly pupils in school - against the interests of the silent, harassed majority, as the treatment of my niece demonstrates.

Behavioural and bullying policies, if they even exist, are inadequate and inconsistently followed. Persistent rule-breakers are given chance after chance and innocent, hardworking children are prevented from learning in a safe and secure environment. I couldn't tell you how many children I've taught who have - and here I paraphrase the DFE's 2012 exclusion guidance - seriously and persistently breached school behavioural policies and harmed the education and welfare of others. That so many have done so with impunity is unforgivable. It is also unlawful. Schools have a statutory duty to protect the welfare of their pupils. They can't without robust responses to poor behaviour enabled by clear, unequivocal policies. In short, this duty is not being fulfilled.

My niece is a victim of her school's wrong-headed determination to keep disruptive, abusive and violent children in school, contrary to Mansell's contention that schools are only too eager to unlawfully move them on. By refusing to fulfil their obligations to prevent bullying and protect her right to an education, they are placing the perceived need to avoid managed moves and exclusions above her welfare. It is nothing short of a disgrace. It's also about time the TES dispensed with its anti-exclusion, bleeding-heart narrative that puts the welfare of bullies above that of the innocent, silent majority. Perhaps they could run a piece on the need to protect children from teachers and Headteachers who, through inaction, give their violent peers permission to terrorise them. Just a thought.