Complaining to the BBC

There are no words to be said, about the day of Victoria's final memorial ceremony, in what would have been her 18th year, being the day they use Khyra as a whipping girl to beat home education.

However, there is a lot to be said for HOW you complain to the BBC.

The BBC self regulates its content. OFCOM rules do not apply to it. HOWEVER, and it is a big however, the principles of the Broadcasting Code apply.

If you are complaining to the BBC today, do not just tell them you are disgusted, annoyed, ashamed etc.

Make a formal complaint and use the language of the Broadcasting Code. State upfront you know the complaint goes to them, the BBC, but use the language and principles of The Code. State you wish a response from them, in terms of your complaint about The Code breeches.

Broadcasting Code

Relevant bits: Impartiality and Accuracy

The BBC has a responsibility to follow the Broadcasting Code on impartial and accurate information. Complaints about this, are dealt with in-house. By the BBC. However, the BBC Trust oversees the complaints are handled properly. If you are complaining, state you wish to be informed of the BBC Trust's response, to the volume of complaints being received ont he Khyra issue. You can also copy your complaint to the BBC Trust. If the BBC doesn't respond well to the original complaint, you can then complain to the BBC Trust, about how the BBC handled your complaint.

Code is also required in the case of the BBC by the BBC Agreement^(-3-)and, in the case of S4C, by statute.

Some things you may wish to use in your complaint:

Due impartiality and due accuracy in news

5.1 News, in whatever form, must be reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality.

5.2 Significant mistakes in news should normally be acknowledged and corrected on air quickly. Corrections should be appropriately scheduled.

The preservation of due impartiality

5.7 Views and facts must not be misrepresented. Views must also be presented with due weight over appropriate timeframes.

Matters of major political or industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy

5.12 In dealing with matters of major political and industrial controversy and major matters relating to current public policy an appropriately wide range of significant views must be included and given due weight in each programme or in clearly linked and timely programmes. Views and facts must not be misrepresented.

The prevention of undue prominence of views and opinions on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy

5.13 Broadcasters should not give undue prominence to the views and opinions of particular persons or bodies on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy in all the programmes included in any service (listed above) taken as a whole.

----

As we know, Khyra was not home educated. This information is n the public domain. Complaints about inaccuracy, would point out the sequence of the removal from school, after Social Services had been alerted. It is sloppy reporting for the BBC not to mention this. They are reporting inaccurately.

This is being published, the week the Bill was voted on and moved to the Lords. Therefore it is part and parcel of a wider public debate. Badman was not part of the Khyra case, yet he is reported in the BBC article. There is no opposing voice, from home educators, to balance his assertion. This is not due impartiality.

If you find good articles - send the BBC the text in your complaint. Let them see what impartial and accurate looks like, compared to their coverage.

If you are going to complain - complain effectively. :-) And if commercial TV or radio do any of this - straight to OFCOM. For newspapers, is the Press Complaints Commission, and it's Accuracy under The Editor's Code.

1

Accuracy

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures. ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact. iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.

Hecate

Musings On Veils....

Apart from the wonderful irony of Baronees Deech attacking Muslim home educators in the same week we started this blog on home education matters, and referred to it as us slipping under the veil... I have been thinking about veils a lot.

I attended the funeral of a significant family member last month - January is the month of death in the Northern Europe pagan calander. Snowdrops, those lovely white promises of spring and warmth, as they push through the cold dead earth... were often referred to as death flowers. When the snowdrops appear, the old and sick, would fade. January and February have the highest death tolls amongst the old and sick, even today.

I thought about veils, as I sat in the pew at the deceased's funeral mass, and observed his widow of 55 years marriage, cope with people making eye contact with her. She desperately needed a veil. When I was a child, she could have worn one. I remember sitting in Church, with women with veils over their faces, when it was a funeral. It wasn't common, but it was normal. If old fashioned. I sat watching the widow grieve, and not know how to respond when people, the priest, strangers, kept engaging in eye contact with her, and she did not want to have to face them. To face them.

So I have been thinking about it a lot. Was it better that we'd thrown out that mourning ritual, and allowed the grief to show? Except it wasn't showing. The problem was she had to wear a mask, as she did not have access to the veil: too old fashioned. A mask that she was 'doing all right'. Subsequently, she isn't going outside, unless she feels very strong: her face gives her away. Her grief is written large upon it, and it is locked into her eyes. To go out, she has to find the strength for a mask, so she isn't going through. Is pushing a mask over your grief, better than pulling a veil over your face? I don't think so. I vote for a veil.

The whole "we don't like women being forced to wear veils as signs of religion" thing confuses me, utterly. I grew up with women who wore veils as a sign of their religious belief, and it was both respected, and held up as a role model. A spiritual role model, it had to be said. Whilst many a Catholic mother fantasised about one of the sons (Never their only son) being a priest, few wanted their daughters to be nuns. Nuns were divorced from their blood families, and weren't there for shopping, cleaning, tea, gossip and babies. A woman was always going to rely on her daughters, to care for her in old age, and having a nun as a daughter had to be a sign of the daughter's devotion to God, above her devotion to her blood family. So it was a two edged sword. Many girls who went into Holy Orders, did so under a cloud, as their income was lost from the family, as well as their domestic work. So on all aspects, it was difficult. It might be less so, in large families with a range of children in ages and running up to double digits... but few of those families existed when I was growing up. even families with 4 or 5 kids.. the 'loss' of a daughter to The Veil, was significant. As was the emotional loss - she left the family in order to join another.

So the taking of the veil was significant, on many counts. And for all the double edgedness of the sword, it was always respected. Nuns were 'special'. They had given up something significant, to take the veil, and that sacrifice, and the sacrifice of a life in service to another, was seen as worthy of respect and honour.

And in this respect and honour, everyone was very aware of why the hair was being covered by the veil. It was a sign of humility, and dedication, and of being chaste. Women's hair was dangerous: it enticed men. A woman's hair was "her crowing glory" and should be covered at times of worship. All Catholic women wore the veil when I grew up - hair had to be covered in Mass. And if you asked why, you were told upfront and without censure: in case the beauty of a woman's hair, should distract a man from prayer. Women being responsible for how men reacted to their femaleness, was deeply entrenched in my culture. "Asking for it" was a very prominent feature of how a woman could come to be punished, chastised or raped for her inappropriate behaviour. Decent women covered themselves... decently. And in Church, all women covered their hair, in order to be decent before God.

So it does confuse me, that now that women of Islamic faiths also wear their veils... it's such a bad thing. It's not like we presumed Christian women, don't. Even if you're not Catholic, and therefore didn't do the entire First Holy Communion thing, with your 7 year old girls turning up for their first Eucharist dressed as Brides, it the hope they too will one day move on to be Brides of Christ... we're all indoctrinated from very early on, for the joy of the moment we get to wear our veil.

Wearing our veil is something we are all told to aspire to, and dream off. The defining moment in the defining day of being female. When you lift your pretty white lacy veil... and kiss your husband for the first time. Thousands of hours and often hundreds, if not thousands, of pounds, are spent on the at veil. On the moment of reveal and the moment of perfection, when you walk down the aisle, and your father hands you to your husband... and your veil is lifted for his eyes, and his eyes only.

So, remind me again why veils are a sign of abuse, intolerance, subjugation and mysogeny? Something to protect women from, in case they don't know what is good for them?

I can hear some of your screaming, you know. You're all shouting at the screen and saying "IT'S OKAY IF YOU _WANT_ TO WEAR ONE, BUT NO ONE CAN MAKE YOU WEAR ONE." And yes, intrinsically, you are correct. Forcing women under the veil, is a very bad thing indeed. And we can agree, utterly, that many women who are forced to wear one, hate it. And it's A Very Bad Thing Indeed.

But there are two things to be said there. One, define 'forced'. I was forced to wear a veil for a few hours of my life, every Sunday whilst I was growing up. Several times, I was forced to do so, by women who had voluntarily chosen to wear a veil for their entire lives. Not to wear one, in Church, was a sign of disrespect. Just like my shoes had to be polished, my knickers clean, my face clean of make up and the paperback I'd smuggled into my hymn book, removed. I was made to conform, in all aspects of the social conditioning my culture operated in. But when I got to be an adult, I could throw it all away. Or keep it, if I wanted. I find it fascinating that the moment the veil is Islamic, there is no such things as free choice. How many of the so called 'forced' women around you are wearing their veils because they choose to? Quite a few, I imagine. How can you then use the presence of that veil and 'subjugation'? I'd call your assumption, racist. And if you argue that, please go up and 'liberate' the next Nun you see. I'm sure she'll be happy for you to have freed her from her male oppressors.

Do the same to a bride at her wedding! That will be such a laugh. Honestly, you'll split your sides.

As a teacher in State schools until recently, I often observed girls of Islamic faith coming in with a hijab one day, and not wearing one the next. It often depended how they felt in the morning, as they got dressed. No doubt some days they felt the yoke of oppression, and others they didn't.

The other point is that as I got older, Vatican 2 had begun to impact, and the rules relaxed: they changed, they moved with the people. The rules on both religious dress, and religious observance, changed. Many of the older habits were replaced with less cloth, and more face. Sometimes, even hair!

Religions are not set in stone: they adapt to the ideas of the people running them. I watched these changes occur, throughout my childhood, with the covering of hair in Church. Many chose hats rather than head scarves, and after cheap package holidays many wore lace Mantillas from Spain, rather than more dowdy head scarves. So much so, in fact, one memorable rant from the pulpit reminded the 'women of the parish' that covering female hair was about respecting God, and not entrancing the men... spending hours getting your hair teased out and putting a frothy lace concoction on it, to catch the eye.. Was Not The Point.

Which was, in fact, quite funny. Because compared to Protestant repressed Scottish Catholicism, actual Spanish Catholicism was a harlot's dream. Those very lace mantillas causing problems in Scottish Catholic Churches, would have been used as handkerchiefs in Spain, where the statues of the Holy Mother had lipstick and blusher on them, and real jewels embroidered on her clothes. Where Spanish women may have had their hair covered in Church, but the concept that they were doing to HIDE themselves, was funny. Where respect and decorum was the right type of attire, in the right circumstance, but you could still DISPLAY the goods. And that, of course, is one of the huge problems about veils: they engender mystery. And mystery is a tease. The chaste women covering herself in self-respect... is the harlot doing the dance of the seven veils ten minutes and two hits of sambucha, later.

Veils and females... is actually quite complicated. They are sometimes about both hiding yourself, and at other times about rejecting the vision of others. Men in our culture don't like their gaze being shut out. It quite offends them. Women are to be looked at, and heaven help any woman who robs you of that pleasure, on your terms.

Veils can be about subjugation of the female to male desire.. and they can be about female independence. Not free to walk around with leering men.. but free to decide where and when your public and private spaces, meet. Veils can be a triumph of personal insight and reflection to your own character. I've witnessed two veilings in my life, when a female has undertaken the sacrament of marriage to Christ, and earned her veil. Both were some of the most powerful spiritual moments I've witnessed.

I also routinely wear a veil, to worship. When I work magically within Qabaliq tradition, I wear my head completely covered, and my hair utterly out of sight. I don't do it because I think I should, or because someone told me, in a book, or in person, that it's 'right'. I do it, because when I decide to commune with that type of power, it feels the right way to do it. Have I absorbed all those comments and rulings over all the years... I'll never know. But I know that as pagan, I use the veil a lot. Both as something that signals there is a time for withdrawal, and a time for self reflection, and for introspection. And it's got nothing to do with anyone looking at me.

I know, that as a pagan woman, the veil stands for many things in my life, and that often makes others uncomfortable. The veil is how we refer to moving from life, to death. The veil is a shadowing of light. Shadows are important, to pagans. We reject the duality of the light/dark divide to be found amongst the Children of Abraham. We respect you believe differently.. but we reject it as a world view. Likewise, we reject that the role of woman is to civilise, and make better, the male. Women and men are equal in both intent, and power, within pagan religions. The idea that a women must protect a male from seeing her beauty, to prevent a rape, or an inappropriate advance: bollocks.

Likewise, no women can claim she went mad over the sight of a beautiful male. Does that sound silly to you, the concept that male beauty can astound, defy and befuddle the senses? If it does, then odds are you are not pagan. Our male Gods are beautiful, and deadly in that beauty, too. In fact, as we are currently operating in a Wiccan mode, our male deity is spring and Green wood and green Earth, and hunting and blood and a hell of a lot of romps in the fields. Like I said, we reject duality. All people can be all things, and shadows are a valued part of the whole. Sex is valued, and is beauty, and we can cover ourselves at ritual, or work stark naked.

We can choose to work with veils. Women and veils have a natural affinity. Women carry life, and wonder for ten long moons if the life will make it out, or die aborning. We carry death as we carry our young, as a mother's heart is fearful from the moment of conception.. on how she will cope with loss, if this life is lost to her. We birth the young and we wash the dead. Women are the natural Guardians of the Veil, despite how patriarchy may then try and abuse that, and force us into servitude in its name. I think my biggest objection to those who comment on the veil.. is the person who sees a veil as a sign of a backward culture. Yes, we'll readily admit that we (read 'Christian') once wore them, and some may still do (nice Nuns) but the concept that women of other faiths still wear them.. is as sign that those women are not yet liberated. The poor Jewish woman, the poor Islamic women.. those who haven't 'advanced' enough to shrug of their veils. No concept that it might be an active, ancient, and fully endorsed by that women, choice. The religiously repressed loony Christians in the far right Bible Belt of the USA.. why some of them still cover their hair!

How many bad hair days have you looked at .. and thought... oh God, what I'd give to just be able to... But no, the tyranny of always look beautiful, and always looking well turned out, and always having tried to look good... prevails. Besides, someone might think you were a religious geek. I once had a severe ear infection, that put me is hospital for several days. In December. When I emerged, I wore a shawl wrapped around my head, covering my ears, and sat in the pub having my lunch. A man came and sat opposite me, and engaged in some extremely pointed anti-Islam comments. Because, of course, all single women in Hijab are having lunch alone in a pub... you can't just have a shawl wrapped around your head without reason. What woman would want to own that stigma without cause?

It appears to be inconceivable to some, that women might choose to work under a veil: it has to be enforced. Sometimes the veil is the front door: we choose to close it to others. But that is just as suspect as wearing the veil: why would we do that? Is it tyranny to force women under a veil? Yes. Is it tyranny to force a women not to wear one? Yes. So what is it if an observer assumes a women, of any age, wearing a veil, is being oppressed? That's racism, dummy. Oh, sorry, that's racism, Baroness...

I'd argue that the core objection to Baroness Deech's comments are actually about closed doors: how dare you close your front door to the The State. Closing your front door AND wearing a cloth around your head... two strikes on excluding The State from checking your business. I was raised by women in veils, educated by them in female only classes, and told to respect and honour their wearing of the veil as a sign of holiness and sacrifice in service of others. But I did so within the State School system. So it was okay and safe - the door of the classroom could be opened at any time, by a Government inspector. Authorities could check that whilst I was being taught within a religious framework, at the State's expense, they could also check I was being taught to be a socially responsible citizen of the State. And before you go on about bombings and jihads, and how unlikely it I would have been taught extremism... this was an Irish Catholic community in a Protestant country at the height of The Troubles. Bombs and bullets were not far from the communion wafers. And as for what happened when the Orange Walks paraded down our main street... I'll just remind you about the joke about the Glasgow man who punched out the two car bombers at Glasgow Airport a couple of years ago... "How dare you try and introduce religious extremism here, we know more about it than you!"

But it was the State Schooling System that taught me that women were responsible for the behaviour of men. That wearing short skirts would entice rape, and your were responsible for it if it happened. It taught me that the powerful Nun in charge of my world, deferred in all things to the Priest, and in turn, everyone deferred to the Bishop. The lessons I learned at home, matched those of the School System. So my indoctrination, and my learning about my lower role in life in general, but my exalted position as the female who had the power to redeem the feckless drunken men of the world... was utterly State sanctioned. And therefore it was acceptable. But the winds have changed on faith schools... for just to be taught by someone of faith, within the confines of that faith., is now dangerous.

They might not be teaching you to vote Labour at the next election.

As a former Labour die hard (Lanarkshire Labour for goodness sake!) you've no idea how much that statement pains me.

And that appears to be the Crux of the Matter of the Veil. Not, are these female children of those of the Islamic faiths, being given freedom to decide that as adults, they can take it off... but are they getting the correct State message on how to act, and work, in our society? Behind closed doors, the state cannot check the right messages are getting through. The current Labour obsession with education education education is about a firm belief that if you raise all children to be fair minded, responsible, hard working, fit and healthy citizens.. they will all vote Labour.

The home of fair minded, responsible, hard working fit and healthy citizens fighting for the right of all working class people to be.. middle class. The Labour Party is going to free all children from the chains of... being different. Only the right age, shape, weight, academically achieved and economically well being child should exist... and only the Labour Party can ensure this, through the State School System. Resist, and you are suspect. The New Labour Party is non-faithed - so all threats of religious viewpoint challenging the dominant mythology of the working class family crawling to suburbia.. will be exterminated. If you are not in school, you are in danger. If you are in a faith system strong enough for you to display that... you are in danger.

And You Will Be Saved!

Deviant women... women who educate... women with closed doors... women with veils... need not apply....

Too dangerous.

Dear Baroness Deech...

... when I said we were slipping under the veil, I had no idea you would take us so literally!

Just to say I am confused about one point. When I was at school, many many women around me wore the veil as a sign of their religious belief. It was perfectly acceptable and no one presumed that anyone in that religion, was automatically abusing children in their care behind closed doors. What's changed?

luv Hecate

"There should be some safeguard against home educated Muslim girls..."

Baroness Deech

February 10, 2010

Dear Baron Soley...

Just a note so say how much I appreciated your recent blog. Much of my pleasure on blog reading, is reading comments. So I'm a bit limited on what to say, since the blog has had no comments to date.

I'm sure this is Just A Glitch, and they will all appear quite soon! It's not as if you're going to take this project "encouraging dialogue between web users and Members of the House of Lords" and censor it, are you! :-)

So I'm sure the comments, all the comments, will appear soon. Look forward to them.

luv Hecate

ps, Just In Case the web system over there at The Other Place is straining, I'm sure you'll find that every comment posted so far, that has not appeared, is saved to hard drive somewhere. If you do have gaps in the comments page, we can help you fill them in! Best wishes, Hec.

Dear Baroness Deech...

.. would love to drop you a note about your excellent blog today. Unfortunately, don't have time, as Beltane requires driving between his Drama, Choir and Gymnastics classes.

Luv Hecate

ps Didn't see you at the Lord's Dining Room when Beltane and I had luncheon there the other month? No doubt you were visiting a school, and regaling 'the girls' about the fact that they were the creme de la creme? We had the smoked salmon ourselves - you might find all that creme, as you age, might not be good for the arteries.... Beltane can explain nutrition to you next time we're in, if you like. After all, you're no longer in your prime..

Passing Through The Veil

By Which I Explain The Law Of Unexpected Consequences

There were quite a few things I didn't expect about becoming a mother. I never expected to, and recoiled from, the idea that I'd discuss the contents of Beltane's nappies, for instance. A few weeks in, I realised that babies don't do much to communicate what's going on, and that the contents of a nappy is telling you something about the baby: so I started talking about the contents of Beltane's nappies.

I still tried not to do it with non-parents. Especially as the nappies were not smelly and disgusting (such is the fate of those changing formula fed babies' nappies - it's the undigested fats in formula, going rank in the gut, that creates nasty nappy smells. See, didn't I tell you the contents of a nappy tells you something?) so I didn't need to pull the "Oh look, have sympathy for me, I'm dealing with nasty baby poo" card. As it happens, most of the nappy changing was done by Osiris anyway, and he was as happy with the sweet smell of Beltane's poo as I was. Yes, we did indulge in the "projectile poo" discussions... but I still tried not to with people who did not have nappy using children.

But the biggest thing I didn't expect about becoming a mother, was not the things I'd thought about and decided upon changing... it was that in the world of parenting, what you do is not simply about What You Do. It's also about What Others Think You've Said, When You Do Things.

I discovered, that simply doing something, was making statements. Huge bold statements. Most of them aggressive. And I'd never opened my mouth. But the statement was heard, loud and clear, nonetheless. Just by doing A), I was also carrying a loud hailer and screeching B), even if I didn't open my mouth.

Confused? Allow me to explain with a few choice examples.

Babywearing. We had a wonderful didymos wrap. It was a birthing present from a cousin who said "Don't bother with a pram" and bought us the sling. She was right, we didn't need a pram. We went from the car to the shops, back to the car. A pram was useless. So we used a wrap instead. Sounds simple enough. Except we found that by using a sling, we were saying things we had not intended. We were, for instance, saying...

"Prams are evil and the work of the devil and if you have one you ARE A BAD PARENT." All we had to do was turn up somewhere with Beltane in his wrap, and we were condemning every parent in the building, who had a pram.

It was most confusing. People would come up and defend pram use to us. "Of course, I have a bad back." "I can't get my shopping in a sling." And then, of course, there were the all out attacks: "That baby is going to freeze to death, where is its pram?" "What are you going to do if it rains?" Once, when Beltane was happily leaning back in his sling, looking up at leaves moving in a tree, a women came up and slammed his head up onto my chest. She also screeched "That baby is going to hurt its neck in that thing." and then moved on. I was in such shock, I didn't hit her. But it was clear to us, very quickly, that by using a wrap or a sling, We Said Something Bad about people who didn't.

Breastfeeding was the same. Much worse, in fact. Just by breastfeeding, I was saying "Formula is poison and you are a shit parent if you formula feed." Speaking wasn't actually necessary. All I had to do was feed Beltane when we were out and about. With people we actually knew, it was even worse. Then, I also, apparently, had a loud hailer that said to any women near me who was using a bottle "You are a crap mother and I have the moral high ground and I can grind my stiletto into your face and make you feel like shit."

Again, I didn't have to speak. I once popped into a neighbour, to give her some mail, and she was making up a bottle of formula in the kitchen. I didn't get out of the house until I'd had a full explanation of why she needed a break in the afternoon and the baby was hungry and she needed some down time and it was perfectly acceptable to mix feed and could she have some sympathy please?

I hadn't spoken a word. In fact, I'd not clocked what she was doing, till she started defending herself. In fact.. how many of you reacted to me pointing out smelly nappies are because of formula? Perfectly factual comment. No weighting or moral point about it. Just Is. Did you react? Hah! Did you think "Oh, I bet someone sees that as criticism...."

Oh boy. Someone is ALWAYS going to see anything you do as a parent, as criticism. More so if you do something less mainstream than others. This isn't a simple sliding scale of mainstream versus alternate. It depends entirely on who you are with, and where you are going. One person's mainstream viewpoint, is another's freaking green eco-warrier cry to arms. Nappies, baby wearing, breastfeeding, vaccinations, teething... all battle grounds. Don't even begin to mention sleep, sleep training or crying it out.

No matter how crunchy you think you are, some one else is going to be crunchier than you, and think you are 'mainstream'. No matter how much you think it's okay to do something a bit different, you are going to be attacked for doing ANYTHING at all. Everyone lets you know that your action, is both unacceptable, and an unspoken criticism of them.

It's just bizarre. It's also devisive. It's also, ultimately, harmful to babies. The world of all things parenting being criticised for everything, reduces true risk to nothing, and encourages everyone to think all things are up for grabs. This isn't true: there are things you simply should not do to babies. You should not harm them, or put them in the way of harm. But even when there is sound medical and scientific evidence of what harm is.. everything is reduced to parental choice and opinion. In a world where everything is up for criticism, all criticism is equal. For every 'choice', there is a 'defence'. Dangerous and damaging practices, such as cutting the end of your baby boy's penis off... becomes on par with discussing whether or not to put fluoride in your 4 year old's toothpaste. Discussions on depriving babies of food and solace, in order to make them sleep through the night in a biologically induced coma... are on par with whether or not you choose a BPA free bottle for your organic formula. Real criticism is sidelined into perceived criticism... and we all lose. Especially the babies.

As a parent, no matter what you do, or don't do, you learn two things quickly:

1) Someone will think you are nuts for doing what you do

and

2) Someone will assume you are criticising them for not doing what you do

Do note that "NOT". It's not about actively criticising things. There are loads of things I will actively criticise. Very rarely to a parent's face, as that's not going to help anyone, but in general terms. In general terms, I will criticise sleep training, scheduling hungry babies and infant genital mutilation. I will stand up and say "These things are harmful and we should, as a culture, stop doing them." I will criticise not using a proper car seat, and I will argue what a proper car seat is, for a small child. If you are pregnant, and you ask me, I'll point out formula feeding has risks, and then leave you to decide for yourself, what you do. I'll criticise medical support agencies for not supporting mothers to breastfeed effectively. I'll criticise you if you hit your child, or belittle it, or ask it to do something it's not developmentally capable of. If you are hitting your child a lot, I'll report your damn ass to the authorities if you've refused all offers of help.

There are things I will criticise. But my point here is not the things you genuinely criticise. We all have to stand up for what we believe in. My point is the concept that by doing action A, you are criticising others for not doing it. It's that when you do something, you are automatically - with no intention on your part - criticising those who DO NOT do what you do. You have implied nothing... it's all in their court. They have inferred it for themselves. It is owned by them. It's utterly out of your hands.

It sucks. And it's part of being a parent. And the less mainstream you are, the more your actions are deemed to imply criticism of others.

You are at the mercy of the person who is making the assumption. The only thing you can learn to do... is ignore it. To learn to slip under the wire. To side step the moments where you will be perceived as Being Against Something... by not revealing what it is you do.

When dealing with other parents, you learn to never raise any parenting issues. When dealing with your family, on parenting, you only speak when spoken to. You put actual discussion of issues to one side, and only ever discuss them in safe spaces. Spaces where you are sure you are speaking to those with similar viewpoints. Otherwise.. you never know how SOMEONE will react to something you do. You keep your head down and slip under the wire.

You go undercover.

We thought, 5 years in, we were experts at it. We thought we had it sussed! We'd learned to avoid, deflate, confuse and confound everyone on just about everything. The art of saying nothing. "Is he sleeping through the night?" "Sleep's going fine, thanks." "How's he doing on solids?" "Weaning is going fine, thanks." "Is he potty trained yet?" "We're happy, thanks"

As Beltane got older, we thought we were over the hump. All the dangers - the conversations that could not be had - were slipping away. We were no longer in a war of unexpected consequences. Just by being who we were, we were know longer attacking everyone else, silent and unspoken.

How wrong we were.

As Beltane got older, and began to attend a play based Nursery, the questions started. Worse, they were to him not us:

"Are you excited about going to school soon?"

"What school are you going to?"

"Have you got your school uniform yet?"

It was, and is, relentless. In shop queues, on the train, at the playground. As a child gets older, the default setting for all and any contact... was school. School is the central touch stone. The safe subject. The North Star of useless, casual conversations.

Unlike all the other areas, it is totally unavoidable. You confront it everyday. And as the child ages, it just gets worse. There is simply no way to avoid answering that you are not going to send your child to formal schooling. Beltane, before hitting age 5, learned to say "I'm home educated." as a way of defending himself against uncomfortable silences and pauses, and adults pushing him to give an answer about 'when he was going to school'.

It's not comfortable, working out a deflect strategy with your 4 year old. Although it was nice empowering him to feel safe and secure when the strange questions were asked.

But it's the things we don't say, that are causing us problems, again. For we are discovering that now Beltane is of school age, and we are no longer speaking of our intent to home educate, but we are slipping into being home educators... that we really are in dark territory. We're discovering how loudly we are criticising others.

For when we say "We're home educating actually." we've discovered we are also saying...

"Schools are shite. Any parent who sends their child to school is shite. All teachers are shite. Any one who was ever in a school is SHITE. And you ARE A BAD PARENT if you don't home educate."

Several things are despicable about this. Not least of all that home education is not a choice. Home education is what you do when you bring the baby home. Home education is how the baby is sitting upright, eating foods, drinking fluids and playing with their toys. Home education is how they know the colour red from the colour blue.

All children are home educated. Every single one. If you doubt this, go find footage of children from a Romanian AIDS orphanage. Witness the utterly silent children and babies as they head bang into cots and beds, view the shambling disconnected movements of children so damaged by lack of attention their brains are jelly. Observe a child that's never been home educated: only kept warm and fed enough for basic survival. No human interaction to allow them to develop normally, and teach them that red is different from blue, or how to hold cutlery and how to chew. No arms to hold them when they cried... so they simply stopped crying.

So it's not that we decided to home educate. It's that we don't choose to change that. If you have a child in formal schooling, you chose to initiate that as an additional activity in your child's life. You chose to add it. You filled in forms, and made it happen.

We did not make that choice. We've not performed that action. We've not opted into something. We haven't filled in a form saying we home educate. We've done nothing. We've just not initiated formal schooling. We're just carrying on as we are.

And by doing that, we're criticising you for doing something different?

Come again?

It gets worse, of course. because unlike baby wearing, and breastfeeding, and gentle discipline... you find out that you're not just criticising the individual by not electing to use the formal school system... you're criticising Society, Western Culture and Civilisation As We Know It.

To some, you are also saying:

"You are a shit person and you live in a shit country with a shit culture and I'm rejecting all society and all civilised laws and what's more I'm personally attacking you for being the worst sort of person it is possible to be and I'm assuming you live an a cruel and torturous world. I am rejecting all you have ever been."

If they are parents of school attending children, you are also saying:

"YOU ARE A BAD PARENT and only my child is worthy of attention and love and nurture as YOU CLEARLY DON'T CARE FOR YOUR CHILD."

Home education, so far, in our experience, is the gold standard in "I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE REALLY SAYING." Trust me, you don't even have to breath heavily, to get this reaction from some people.

When you say you home educate, suddenly you're a vampire at a blood donation drive.

You are rejecting all that is good and right and clean in the world, and you are stating that social structures that exist to keep society together.. are Bad Things. On the personal level you are damaging your kids by refusing the wholesome and pure experience of being with their peers whilst they earn their academic flying colours... on the cultural, you are attacking and damaging the fabric of society. The absence of your child in the social structures of the day, will weaken society.

And don't you dare try and explain your choices.. for every statement will be met with what you really mean: "YOU ARE A SHITE PARENT." Doesn't matter why you say you are not choosing to change your life - all that will be heard is: "You Are Bad For Not Home Educating."

The crazy thing about this... the truly crazy awful thing...? I don't know a single person who doesn't have reservations about formal schooling. I don't know a single person who does not admit, and discuss at length, that formal education is not meeting our needs as a society. Not one person I know, is not anxious about something wrong with formal schooling. Particularly teachers. No one can agree on what a 'good' education is, or how to achieve that in a way that serves both child, and society. and tax payers. The current system has been changed so many times in the past 20 years it's the classic swan designed by committee - a complete turkey. Everyone accepts that schools are performing less well in basic skills and literacy than ever before, and that many students are deeply unhappy.

Yet.. yet.. if you say you're not going to use that system... you are suspect. Truly suspect. It's not pleasant, it's actually slightly sinister. You're having your Party credentials checked - are you a member of The Human Race? Or are you a plant for the other party? The non-human one? Satanism, demonism, vampirism.. anything undead and unholy. You've rejected the sacred and hallowed ground of The School, and so exist in some weird shadowy veil of darkness. You walk on unhallowed ground.

As Beltane is now 5, and of school age, it really is like slipping under a veil and becoming Something Else. When once his being in a shop with us during 'school time' was not noticeably, it's now obvious that people look at us with a "Why isn't that child in school?" When they ask him why he's not in school, and he answers "I'm home educated!" they look around in panic. Very few manage to recover themselves, or stammer out a reply. Most purse their lips and stare at you.

We smile and move on.

It's not so easy to do so with those we know, who are using the School system. Especially family. Every one has a reactive response to anything you say. No matter what you say is your positive reason for not using the School system, you are criticising them. Say you like being close to you child: you're saying they are not close to their child, or don't like being close to your child. Say you are happy to continue learning at home: you are saying they aren't.

You Simply Can't Win.

No matter what you say, they will always hear something else.

And in the spirit of simply not being able to win... welcome to Unhallowed Ground.

We know we're dark, mysterious, unholy and probably destined for being undead. We relish the fact that you, and your attitudes to us, is slipping us under a veil. We will walk in our world when we choose to, and carry on raising our child as we see fit. Our child is our business and none of yours. We don't care two hoots what you think we're saying about you.

It's not about you.

It's about us.

Deal With It.