World thread

[Pope John XXIII]

Yes you are more concerned about his treatment.

I'm concerned about the people who have to guard him- I have said that in every post on the subject.

But I also don't agree with medieval punishment either

You’ve taken the time to understand his condition and the impact it has on the rest of his life.

I literally live with autism every day Will. I don't need to "take time" to understand it, I live this. It is my life sentence.

Let’s just be honest shall we, you’d take the time to tell me why I’m misunderstood about a guy who’s murdered young innocent girls

I have not actually done that.

My initial post to you was that he is attacking guards because he is autistic and they are not handling him properly. Handle him properly, make some adaptions and ensure he is in an environment he can cope with and you'll protect your prison employees. That has always been the argument.

For some reason you switched it to being about the murders.

I have played ball a little by explaining how they are linked to his autism, but I have been very clear that this does not mitigate.

What I have been pointing out is the important point that autistic obsessions gone bad can be intervened with and future incidents prevented if we only have some proper services. Rudikabana's parents were in denial, but it probably wouldn't have made a difference if they weren't, because there are fuck all agencies they could have sought help from anyway

In all of this you have shown a pretty staggering lack of interest.

This whole point about learning lessons and prevention in the future? You didn't give a shit. Totally ignored, back to the same old attack points.

Your every post has epitomised the problem politically in this country.

Manufactured outrage covering cold, hard indifference. And it's this indifference that will kill little girls in the future

but you’d jump on why it’s right for somebody who’s tweeted the words ‘burn it down for all I care’ is in jail for 2 years.

Oh yes, the wonderful Lucy Connolly.

A horrible, vindictive self proclaimed victim.

Having seen more of her tweets I do actually have sympathy, because I think she is probably genuinely too thick to understand what she has done wrong or what crime she has committed

But she's clearly not the only one!

Being the wife of a councillor and thus having lots of followers, she tells people online who are already looking for asylum hotels to burn down to during an active riot to burn down a hotel.

Lets remember the context - fake information by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (who in my view should have gone to prison for that) and echoed (carefully, on the right side of the law) by Nigel Farage- that the killer was an illegal immigrant, when he was not.

Riots as a result of Yaxley-Lennon's misinformation.

And then this by a councillors wife with 9000 followers that was then seen 310,000 times whilst people were out trying to burn asylum hotels

This is inciting racial hatred. Check the law.

A woman so dense that she left prison and immediately started making social media posts that risked her being recalled

And then you have this absolute gem- claiming that "free speech is dead under Starmer" while smiling in a photo at a "free speech festival"

https://twitter.com/x/status/2035519774445236566

That said, I am glad she had a comfortable cell- with a "plasma TV" and a playstation if she were so inclined, rather than a medieval dungeon with just the dripping of water and the growing of mould as company

 

[BarryGirtles]

I'm concerned about the people who have to guard him- I have said that in every post on the subject.

But I also don't agree with medieval punishment either


I literally live with autism every day Will. I don't need to "take time" to understand it, I live this. It is my life sentence.


I have not actually done that.

My initial post to you was that he is attacking guards because he is autistic and they are not handling him properly. Handle him properly, make some adaptions and ensure he is in an environment he can cope with and you'll protect your prison employees. That has always been the argument.

For some reason you switched it to being about the murders.

I have played ball a little by explaining how they are linked to his autism, but I have been very clear that this does not mitigate.

What I have been pointing out is the important point that autistic obsessions gone bad can be intervened with and future incidents prevented if we only have some proper services. Rudikabana's parents were in denial, but it probably wouldn't have made a difference if they weren't, because there are fuck all agencies they could have sought help from anyway

In all of this you have shown a pretty staggering lack of interest.

This whole point about learning lessons and prevention in the future? You didn't give a shit. Totally ignored, back to the same old attack points.

Your every post has epitomised the problem politically in this country.

Manufactured outrage covering cold, hard indifference. And it's this indifference that will kill little girls in the future


Oh yes, the wonderful Lucy Connolly.

A horrible, vindictive self proclaimed victim.

Having seen more of her tweets I do actually have sympathy, because I think she is probably genuinely too thick to understand what she has done wrong or what crime she has committed

But she's clearly not the only one!

Being the wife of a councillor and thus having lots of followers, she tells people online who are already looking for asylum hotels to burn down to during an active riot to burn down a hotel.

View attachment 90900 Lets remember the context - fake information by Stephen Yaxley-Lennon (who in my view should have gone to prison for that) and echoed (carefully, on the right side of the law) by Nigel Farage- that the killer was an illegal immigrant, when he was not.

Riots as a result of Yaxley-Lennon's misinformation.

And then this by a councillors wife with 9000 followers that was then seen 310,000 times whilst people were out trying to burn asylum hotels

This is inciting racial hatred. Check the law.

A woman so dense that she left prison and immediately started making social media posts that risked her being recalled

And then you have this absolute gem- claiming that "free speech is dead under Starmer" while smiling in a photo at a "free speech festival"

https://twitter.com/x/status/2035519774445236566

That said, I am glad she had a comfortable cell- with a "plasma TV" and a playstation if she were so inclined, rather than a medieval dungeon with just the dripping of water and the growing of mould as company

Reporting describes SYL sharing content suggesting authorities were manipulating the public over the identity, justifying the anger of those involved in disorder in Southport, and contributing to the push of the false “illegal migrant”/Muslim asylum seeker framing… alongside others. I agree, he was a prominent figure, online, that spread and inflamed the false claims, and he faced investigation related to the unrest. I’m assuming that the police did not have enough evidence to say the riots were directly linked to his comments. He would’ve pleaded not guilty too and it is
likely the judiciary would not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt. The “fake information by” him aligns with widespread contemporary reporting of his role in amplifying the misinformation, though he was one of multiple amplifiers rather than the sole originator.

Lucy Connolly was poorly advised to plead guilty and was made an example of.

Not sure Farage did anything untoward at all. He posted a video the day after the attack questioning whether “the truth is being withheld from us,” asking if the suspect had been monitored by security services (citing “some reports”), and noting police descriptions of it as non-terror-related. He framed it as legitimate questions amid public unhappiness over law and order. He did not directly state or assert as fact that the killer was an illegal immigrant. He has since said he was responding to a vacuum of information that allowed wild conspiracies to spread, that he was calling for clarity/transparency, and that greater early disclosure of basic facts (e.g., UK birth) could have reduced the scale of disorder. Critics accused him of stoking distrust; he has obviously rejected responsibility for the riots and maintained his comments were careful and justified.

The piece of shit was not an illegal immigrant; false claims that he was (or a similar recent Muslim migrant) fuelled the riots; SYL played a prominent role in amplifying inflammatory and false or misleading narratives around the identity and the public response; as you say, Farage’s contribution was more cautious questioning of official transparency rather than directly repeating the specific immigration-status falsehood. The riots had the misinformation as a clear proximate cause amid wider tensions.

If you feel SYL should have gone to prison for the amplification of misinformation, then surely Nick Lowles from Hope Not Hate should’ve too. He made false claims about an imaginary Muslim lady, in Middlesborough, having acid thrown at her. This did not happen.

 

[Pope John XXIII]

This woman is something else

https://twitter.com/x/status/2084304771347877977

 

[pebble]

This woman is something else

https://twitter.com/x/status/2084304771347877977

She's not the only one within reform.

 

[BarryGirtles]

She's not the only one within reform.

She talks a lot of sense.

 

[pebble]

She talks a lot of sense.

 

[Pope John XXIII]

Jesus Christ

Primary schools to be told to identify children at risk of future unemployment

Exclusive: Neet crisis review to call for teachers to be asked to spot those at risk of leaving education jobless at 16

www.theguardian.com

So now primaries are going to have to "identify" 10-11 year olds at risk of not getting jobs at 18 or dropping out of school at 16?

Great.

And this comes a week after a so-called study that claimed teachers deliberately underestimated boys predicted grades for UCAS and hampered their life chances.

So on the one hand teachers have to make a prediction about who is likely to be economically unproductive years in advance.

But when we make a prediction about what grades a boy is likely to get 6 months hence, we are institutionally biased, have a prejudice against boys and basically have 666 tattoos on our bodies.

Meanwhile, the biggest scandal in waiting in education, that of parents being able to pull their child out to "homeschool" them (even in cases where the idea of a particular parent providing any education is laughable) remains not only untackled but the right has recently been strenghened and school's ability to do anything about it (already near zero) has been weakened.

Mark my words- the next big safeguarding scandal is going to be around homeschooling. We have already had it with Sara Sharif, but the media failed to pick up on the homeschooling aspect and the extent to which it stopped the school intervening and shielded her scumbag parents

 

[in_the_top_one]

How ridiculous!

 

[weejockmcplop]

Jesus Christ

Primary schools to be told to identify children at risk of future unemployment

Exclusive: Neet crisis review to call for teachers to be asked to spot those at risk of leaving education jobless at 16

www.theguardian.com

So now primaries are going to have to "identify" 10-11 year olds at risk of not getting jobs at 18 or dropping out of school at 16?

Great.

And this comes a week after a so-called study that claimed teachers deliberately underestimated boys predicted grades for UCAS and hampered their life chances.

So on the one hand teachers have to make a prediction about who is likely to be economically unproductive years in advance.

But when we make a prediction about what grades a boy is likely to get 6 months hence, we are institutionally biased, have a prejudice against boys and basically have 666 tattoos on our bodies.

Meanwhile, the biggest scandal in waiting in education, that of parents being able to pull their child out to "homeschool" them (even in cases where the idea of a particular parent providing any education is laughable) remains not only untackled but the right has recently been strenghened and school's ability to do anything about it (already near zero) has been weakened.

Mark my words- the next big safeguarding scandal is going to be around homeschooling. We have already had it with Sara Sharif, but the media failed to pick up on the homeschooling aspect and the extent to which it stopped the school intervening and shielded her scumbag parents

I'm veering off topic here Popey but I'm curious as to your opinion on something, what with your personal experience you could probably offer some insight.

My nephew has recently stopped going to school (he's 12) because he was getting bullied to an extreme.
Now I disagree with that decision, but its not the point of the question here.

He was bullied by an autistic kid. The school basically refused to take his reports of bullying (once he went to the headteacher who told him 'you should be in lessons, I can't have you in here talking to me about this right now').

Now my brother is convinced the school simply cannot deal with the issue because the autistic bully has an official diagnosis, and is SEN, and so gets to choose which school he goes to and the school is pretty much unable to do anything about that.

They are now looking at homeschooling my nephew due to this.

I don't understand the mechanics of all this and how it works, but it seems like the school are placed in an impossible position, probably by rules that were introduced with the best of intentions.
Its heartbreaking to see a young kid slip through the gaps like this though.
Homeschooling necessarily leaves out a big part of growing up. TBH it might be better for the lad, he's probably on the spectrum himself but doesn't have a diagnosis, but he's a clever kid who struggles with the school system anyway.

I don't really know what I'm specifically asking, more just whether you have any insight into this kind of thing or whether you have any similar experiences at your work?

 

[Pope John XXIII]

I'm veering off topic here Popey but I'm curious as to your opinion on something, what with your personal experience you could probably offer some insight.

My nephew has recently stopped going to school (he's 12) because he was getting bullied to an extreme.
Now I disagree with that decision, but its not the point of the question here.

He was bullied by an autistic kid. The school basically refused to take his reports of bullying (once he went to the headteacher who told him 'you should be in lessons, I can't have you in here talking to me about this right now').

Now my brother is convinced the school simply cannot deal with the issue because the autistic bully has an official diagnosis, and is SEN, and so gets to choose which school he goes to and the school is pretty much unable to do anything about that.

They are now looking at homeschooling my nephew due to this.

I don't understand the mechanics of all this and how it works, but it seems like the school are placed in an impossible position, probably by rules that were introduced with the best of intentions.
Its heartbreaking to see a young kid slip through the gaps like this though.
Homeschooling necessarily leaves out a big part of growing up. TBH it might be better for the lad, he's probably on the spectrum himself but doesn't have a diagnosis, but he's a clever kid who struggles with the school system anyway.

I don't really know what I'm specifically asking, more just whether you have any insight into this kind of thing or whether you have any similar experiences at your work?

First of all, it's important to realise that schools don't want to not deal with bullying. They do want every child to feel happy and safe so in my experience, where children/parents feel like they have been dismissed it is often a breakdown of communication.

Either communication between the child and the parents over what is going on, or the child/ parents not fully articulating the full picture.

But it's not impossible that pre-concieved assumptions get in the way as well if the full picture isn't communicated, and sometimes schools and parents differ significantly on what bullying is. I'll explain that later.

In terms of the bully being SEN, you can absolutely exclude a child with SEN and a diagnosis. Generally SEN children are over represented in exclusions because their SEN may present unacceptable behaviours. The SEND child only gets to choose what school they go to if they have an EHCP, which is difficult to get (my son has one, for instance, but he is at special school).

If they have an EHCP then they have a "named" school and, yes- the school would feel under pressure to not have a lot of EHCP student suspensions on it's records. Unfortunately, the parents of these children tend to be very combative and defensive of their children as well.

But a school absolutely can permanently exclude an EHCP child if necessary and as long as they have all the paperwork and processes.

The problem may come with what "dealing with the issue" constitutes.

Bullying is insideous. It can be a look, or it can be a beating, and anything in between

For school leaders, violence is easy- physical assault against a pupil should (and usually is) a straight up suspension (exclusion) and if it is violent enough or persistent enough it will be a P/Ex.

What is harder for schools is everything short of that. Verbal is hard to prove unless you have witnesses, but verbal assaults are hard to justify to a parent as a suspension and impossible to get through as a P/Ex, especially as an EHCP student

It depends what they are saying - racist or homophobic or disablist insults are easy to deal with and would be suspension, as could be outright verbal abuse.

But there are a lot of comments that can be made that can feel very hurtful or upsetting, but can also be "explained away" as fairly innocuous or low level.

Example- "no, we dont want you sitting with us".

Really, really hurtful to the recipient - but what reasonable sanction can a school impose for that, which is in fairness a child's choice?

Next step up ; "fuck off and sit somewhere else" - the behaviour policy might be a negative point for the swear word, but how do you tell someone that their choice of who to spend time with is bullying?

I had a dad screaming in my face once that I had ignored the bullying of his child (which he had literally reported to me in that conversation). The incidents? The student had perceived some girls giving them "a look" in the corridor, and on entering an open area with lots of students talking, two friends of the alleged bully looked at the victim and stopped talking.

Schools can't sanction "a look". We can't deny a child education for a day or two on suspension for something like that, but that is often what parents want.

We can go with "persistent bullying behaviour" and sanction this but it requires a lot of evidence- and once the suspension is done, all you can do is try to separate students in lessons. But if they are, say, year 10 and both taking a subject with only one class...

You would never get a P/ex for verbal bullying with an EHCP student through an appeals panel without violence involved.

I would strongly recommend a) reflecting on the parental contact with school and how well communicated the seriousness of the bullying has been- have all options been explored? For instance, have they been separated in lessons (unfortunately due to the EHCP it will end up being your nephew being moved classes) and have they offered a safe space for him and his friends at lunchtime?

Schools are very frightened of qualifying complaints to Ofsted about bullying so this threat can certainly lubricate things if they feel leaders are taking it less seriously

I would recommend avoiding homeschooling, especially for a child on the spectrum unless they literally cannot cope with school mentally. Another school would be better as the extreme option but there should be options where they are

 

[weejockmcplop]

First of all, it's important to realise that schools don't want to not deal with bullying. They do want every child to feel happy and safe so in my experience, where children/parents feel like they have been dismissed it is often a breakdown of communication.

Either communication between the child and the parents over what is going on, or the child/ parents not fully articulating the full picture.

But it's not impossible that pre-concieved assumptions get in the way as well if the full picture isn't communicated, and sometimes schools and parents differ significantly on what bullying is. I'll explain that later.

In terms of the bully being SEN, you can absolutely exclude a child with SEN and a diagnosis. Generally SEN children are over represented in exclusions because their SEN may present unacceptable behaviours. The SEND child only gets to choose what school they go to if they have an EHCP, which is difficult to get (my son has one, for instance, but he is at special school).

If they have an EHCP then they have a "named" school and, yes- the school would feel under pressure to not have a lot of EHCP student suspensions on it's records. Unfortunately, the parents of these children tend to be very combative and defensive of their children as well.

But a school absolutely can permanently exclude an EHCP child if necessary and as long as they have all the paperwork and processes.

The problem may come with what "dealing with the issue" constitutes.

Bullying is insideous. It can be a look, or it can be a beating, and anything in between

For school leaders, violence is easy- physical assault against a pupil should (and usually is) a straight up suspension (exclusion) and if it is violent enough or persistent enough it will be a P/Ex.

What is harder for schools is everything short of that. Verbal is hard to prove unless you have witnesses, but verbal assaults are hard to justify to a parent as a suspension and impossible to get through as a P/Ex, especially as an EHCP student

It depends what they are saying - racist or homophobic or disablist insults are easy to deal with and would be suspension, as could be outright verbal abuse.

But there are a lot of comments that can be made that can feel very hurtful or upsetting, but can also be "explained away" as fairly innocuous or low level.

Example- "no, we dont want you sitting with us".

Really, really hurtful to the recipient - but what reasonable sanction can a school impose for that, which is in fairness a child's choice?

Next step up ; "fuck off and sit somewhere else" - the behaviour policy might be a negative point for the swear word, but how do you tell someone that their choice of who to spend time with is bullying?

I had a dad screaming in my face once that I had ignored the bullying of his child (which he had literally reported to me in that conversation). The incidents? The student had perceived some girls giving them "a look" in the corridor, and on entering an open area with lots of students talking, two friends of the alleged bully looked at the victim and stopped talking.

Schools can't sanction "a look". We can't deny a child education for a day or two on suspension for something like that, but that is often what parents want.

We can go with "persistent bullying behaviour" and sanction this but it requires a lot of evidence- and once the suspension is done, all you can do is try to separate students in lessons. But if they are, say, year 10 and both taking a subject with only one class...

You would never get a P/ex for verbal bullying with an EHCP student through an appeals panel without violence involved.

I would strongly recommend a) reflecting on the parental contact with school and how well communicated the seriousness of the bullying has been- have all options been explored? For instance, have they been separated in lessons (unfortunately due to the EHCP it will end up being your nephew being moved classes) and have they offered a safe space for him and his friends at lunchtime?

Schools are very frightened of qualifying complaints to Ofsted about bullying so this threat can certainly lubricate things if they feel leaders are taking it less seriously

I would recommend avoiding homeschooling, especially for a child on the spectrum unless they literally cannot cope with school mentally. Another school would be better as the extreme option but there should be options where they are

This is all very helpful stuff thanks!
I need to have a proper chat with my bro about it now - but its not something I'd like to keep discussing here as I don't have permission to post this (not that anyone here knows who I am).

 

[in_the_top_one]

This is all very helpful stuff thanks!
I need to have a proper chat with my bro about it now - but its not something I'd like to keep discussing here as I don't have permission to post this (not that anyone here knows who I am).

Oh really..? I know exactly who you are.
In fact, I'm outside your house right now.
I like the pictures you've got on the wall.

 

[weejockmcplop]

Oh really..? I know exactly who you are.
In fact, I'm outside your house right now.
I like the pictures you've got on the wall.

The pictures of you?
In the shower?

 

[in_the_top_one]

The pictures of you?
In the shower?

Are they 'just' me..? You make them sound like I'm alone!

 

[weejockmcplop]

In a brilliant demonstration of the entire movement, a female police officer was hospitalized the other day in the "protect are women" pogroms in Thetford.

 

[weejockmcplop]

"If anyone gets to brutalize women, it should be us"
is the right wing attitude.

 

[Pope John XXIII]

Trump has signed an order to limit vaccines and split the MMR jab

"Decades ago, children received only a small fraction of the vaccines required today," Trump said on Monday. "In those times, people were much healthier and of course the high rates of autism now observed did not exist."

You absolute fucking idiot

 

[Will.NFFC]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2086887707624534318

This is absolutely disgusting

 

[in_the_top_one]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2086887707624534318

This is absolutely disgusting

There's nothing of substance in this article.
I'm very pleased they were talking about potential risks. There is a big gap between theoretical potential and evidence. And another between that and the cost:benefit analysis.


Unless you are talking about the allegations of deleting stuff? If true, I'd be very opposed to that.

 

[Pope John XXIII]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2086887707624534318

This is absolutely disgusting

No no no Will, please- don't keep going down this right wing conspiracy theory rabbit hole you have been plummeting down for months.

This is bollocks.

He did his job- he pointed out that there was a tiny theoretical risk from from the fever associated with the second dose.

That theoretical risk turned out to not exist so it was right not to make it public

The "82% miscarriage" rate is a very basic misreading of the data from one tiny study that was debunked in 2021

The actual miscarriage rate was 12%, which is well within the 10%-20% general rate of miscarriage anyway.

Every study has shown NO excess miscarriages or unusual patterns due to the vaccine

The miscarriage rate from actually having COVID is much higher than that.

It doesn't take a lot of thought Will.

If 4 women out of 5 suddenly started miscarrying across the world (including here) I think people would have noticed back in 2020/2021

This is an American far right wing distraction. They want to put Fauci in jail to discredit vaccines and as a scapegoat for their disastrous handling of COVID. MAGA people have made putting the senior medical expert in jail a mantra because it discredits all science that they don't agree with