Today I'm angry about.....

[thebish]

I suspect that this issue lies not just with faith schools but with any school that the govt allows to be its own admissions authority - this also applies to academies and free schools which (several reports have shown) are also riding roughshod over admissions policy. The govt wants to make many, many more schools into academies and allow them to be their own admissions authority - the problem is set to get worse rather than better.

I am sure Pru can reassure us that that the BHA outrage is really a genuine concern for UK-wide schools admission fairness and that the BHA is just as assiduous in reporting non-faith academies and free schools for admissions misdeeds too. it is wrong wherever it happens.

I'm not sure, though I doubt it as it's an interest group - it's not "for" holding all schools admissions to account. That's how the legal system works, interest groups with the money and man power take on cases individuals couldn't reasonably do.

I hope and imagine there are other interest groups that would/ do take up the case in the other areas you mention. I'd certainly understand their outrage and suppor their position if the govt. tried to stop them doing that in their area, and particularly if in doing so it dismissed them as "vexatious" despite them winning 97% of their cases and every school they compalined about being found to have broken the law.

I'm sure generally the BHA supports fair admission across the country, though when it comes to taking on cases the remit is going to be specific. Seems fair enough to me.

aye - but the BHA's "interest" is promoting Humanism, no?

[TANGODANCER]

Nicky f*cking Morgan, again. Decided to ban groups like the BHA making complaints on behalf of parents when faith schools break admissions laws. She said she wanted to stop "vexatious" complaints by "secularist campaign groups", despite the fact that the BHA won 97% of its cases, and every single school they complained about was found to have broken the law. She's a dick.

Nothing unusual that a man with no faith should be the first complaining about faith schools policies.

Do you think it's OK that schools are acting unlawfully in their admissions? Or that when someone points out that this is happening, the Department of fecking Education's response is not to stop those schools breaking the law, but stop people pointing out that they've broken the law and trying to hold them accountable?

I really haven't the faintest idea if it's proven that they have or haven't done so, hence I don't go wading in with accusations of right or wrong. Rules are rules, laws are laws and I don't make either, but I'm also sure that faith schools are no different than any others in their concerns for their own and their charges' welfares. Being a product of a Catholic school I also came from an era were Catholic and Protestant were the only real issues. I then went to a non-Catholic Technical college much to the dismay of our local parish heirarchy. None of it had any real affect on my beliefs and faith and not a BHA in sight to the best of my knowlege. . Still doesn't affect them in any way and all my kids went to C of E schools. No doubt it will all sort itself out in time.

[Worthy4England]

She's a dick.

One that likely has a glittering career ahead. Albeit without the qualifying appendage, not that that troubled Margaret.

She deffo had a qualifying appendage.

[thebish]

Nicky f*cking Morgan, again. Decided to ban groups like the BHA making complaints on behalf of parents when faith schools break admissions laws. She said she wanted to stop "vexatious" complaints by "secularist campaign groups", despite the fact that the BHA won 97% of its cases, and every single school they complained about was found to have broken the law. She's a dick.

Nothing unusual that a man with no faith should be the first complaining about faith schools policies.

Do you think it's OK that schools are acting unlawfully in their admissions? Or that when someone points out that this is happening, the Department of fecking Education's response is not to stop those schools breaking the law, but stop people pointing out that they've broken the law and trying to hold them accountable?

I really haven't the faintest idea if it's proven that they have or haven't done so,

they have. as have (I'll wager) an equivalent proportion of non-"faith" academies and free schools. it isn't the "faith" element that leads to this cheating - it's the granting of admissions authority beyond the local authority to the schools themselves...

Pru's anger is not directed so much at the schools but at the secretary of state for her response to them being reported...

I'm not sure how angry Pru is at the flouting of the rules themselves (it's nothing new!) - but I am sure his anger would be equally stong for non-faith schools doing it as for faith schools doing it.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

^ I don't have much faith in that argument.

[Worthy4England]

I suspect that this issue lies not just with faith schools but with any school that the govt allows to be its own admissions authority - this also applies to academies and free schools which (several reports have shown) are also riding roughshod over admissions policy. The govt wants to make many, many more schools into academies and allow them to be their own admissions authority - the problem is set to get worse rather than better.

I am sure Pru can reassure us that that the BHA outrage is really a genuine concern for UK-wide schools admission fairness and that the BHA is just as assiduous in reporting non-faith academies and free schools for admissions misdeeds too. it is wrong wherever it happens.

I'm not sure, though I doubt it as it's an interest group - it's not "for" holding all schools admissions to account. That's how the legal system works, interest groups with the money and man power take on cases individuals couldn't reasonably do.

I hope and imagine there are other interest groups that would/ do take up the case in the other areas you mention. I'd certainly understand their outrage and suppor their position if the govt. tried to stop them doing that in their area, and particularly if in doing so it dismissed them as "vexatious" despite them winning 97% of their cases and every school they compalined about being found to have broken the law.

I'm sure generally the BHA supports fair admission across the country, though when it comes to taking on cases the remit is going to be specific. Seems fair enough to me.

If they're targeting faith schools, which appears to be the contention, I can see how this could be viewed as vexatious.

As a parent whose children went to a faith school (Juniors) because it was nearest and went to a non-faith school (Seniors) because it was nearest, I don't have a particular issue with either.

I'm happy that there's some choice for parents and that shouldn't be derailed by a special interest group with 40,000 members and no elected mandate. I never thought I'd say this about a Tory minister, but I hope she succeeds in stopping any group using legal opportunism to change a status quo when there is no mandate for that to happen.

[Prufrock]

I suspect that this issue lies not just with faith schools but with any school that the govt allows to be its own admissions authority - this also applies to academies and free schools which (several reports have shown) are also riding roughshod over admissions policy. The govt wants to make many, many more schools into academies and allow them to be their own admissions authority - the problem is set to get worse rather than better.

I am sure Pru can reassure us that that the BHA outrage is really a genuine concern for UK-wide schools admission fairness and that the BHA is just as assiduous in reporting non-faith academies and free schools for admissions misdeeds too. it is wrong wherever it happens.

I'm not sure, though I doubt it as it's an interest group - it's not "for" holding all schools admissions to account. That's how the legal system works, interest groups with the money and man power take on cases individuals couldn't reasonably do.

I hope and imagine there are other interest groups that would/ do take up the case in the other areas you mention. I'd certainly understand their outrage and suppor their position if the govt. tried to stop them doing that in their area, and particularly if in doing so it dismissed them as "vexatious" despite them winning 97% of their cases and every school they compalined about being found to have broken the law.

I'm sure generally the BHA supports fair admission across the country, though when it comes to taking on cases the remit is going to be specific. Seems fair enough to me.

If they're targeting faith schools, which appears to be the contention, I can see how this could be viewed as vexatious.

As a parent whose children went to a faith school (Juniors) because it was nearest and went to a non-faith school (Seniors) because it was nearest, I don't have a particular issue with either.

I'm happy that there's some choice for parents and that shouldn't be derailed by a special interest group with 40,000 members and no elected mandate. I never thought I'd say this about a Tory minister, but I hope she succeeds in stopping any group using legal opportunism to change a status quo when there is no mandate for that to happen.

They're not "changing the status quo", the schools were all found to have broken the law that currently exists! In each of the cases parents wanted to challenge the admission decisions of schools. As regular Joe's they didn't have the legal expertise or money to do so so the BHA as the relevant campaign group helped them (as many campaign groups do for many interests - RSPCA for animals, Greenpeace with environmental issues, etc etc etc...)and in 97% of cases the parents won the case (and in the other case the school was still found to have acted illegally).

They aren't suing any school that selects on the basis of faith. That WOULD be vexatious, as schools are allowed to do so (with limits). They're suing specific schools for specific decisions which breach the regulations on how faith schools are and are not allowed to discriminate. You'd think the govt. would support an organisation that has such a good track record at legitimately holding schools to account to the law (in fact, you might not be surprised to find that at the time, the DofE actually thanked the BHA for doing so); however, fast forward several months, not long after the BHA coincidentally won a court case directly against the DofE relating to another issue, and suddenly Nicky f*cking Morgan is doing her thang.

[Prufrock]

Nicky f*cking Morgan, again. Decided to ban groups like the BHA making complaints on behalf of parents when faith schools break admissions laws. She said she wanted to stop "vexatious" complaints by "secularist campaign groups", despite the fact that the BHA won 97% of its cases, and every single school they complained about was found to have broken the law. She's a dick.

Nothing unusual that a man with no faith should be the first complaining about faith schools policies.

Do you think it's OK that schools are acting unlawfully in their admissions? Or that when someone points out that this is happening, the Department of fecking Education's response is not to stop those schools breaking the law, but stop people pointing out that they've broken the law and trying to hold them accountable?

I really haven't the faintest idea if it's proven that they have or haven't done so,

they have. as have (I'll wager) an equivalent proportion of non-"faith" academies and free schools. it isn't the "faith" element that leads to this cheating - it's the granting of admissions authority beyond the local authority to the schools themselves...

Pru's anger is not directed so much at the schools but at the secretary of state for her response to them being reported...

I'm not sure how angry Pru is at the flouting of the rules themselves (it's nothing new!) - but I am sure his anger would be equally stong for non-faith schools doing it as for faith schools doing it.

You seem to be implying that it wouldn't; it would!

If what I'd happened to read on my Twitter timeline this morning was Nicky Morgan banning another legitimate campaign group from holding schools that unlawfully discriminated in some way to account, I'd be on here slagging her off for that instead. I also wouldn't be surprised to see it happen. I don't doubt that many non-faith schools break the rules too, using the same trick faith schools have used for years. Indirectly select the best pupils, then when they do well, claim that they do well due to the particular quality of that school (faith-selecting or academy).

In either case, when it happens ("it" being a child being unfairly discriminated against in the selection process) it's a disgrace. For the govt. to be attacking the groups that point out this unlawful processes to be attacked rather than taking steps to ensure that its own laws are complied with is fecking egregious. Were it not for the identities of the usual suspects, I'd profess shock that anyone could thin that OK.

X discriminates against Y.
Z helps Y in the courts and Y wins the case.
Govt decides the action it needs to take is to clamp down on Z.

Mental.

[Worthy4England]

Now Sir, if you want me to believe that they don't have wider ulterior motives, then I suspect you think I'm greener and hairier than is actually the case.

[Prufrock]

I suspect that this issue lies not just with faith schools but with any school that the govt allows to be its own admissions authority - this also applies to academies and free schools which (several reports have shown) are also riding roughshod over admissions policy. The govt wants to make many, many more schools into academies and allow them to be their own admissions authority - the problem is set to get worse rather than better.

I am sure Pru can reassure us that that the BHA outrage is really a genuine concern for UK-wide schools admission fairness and that the BHA is just as assiduous in reporting non-faith academies and free schools for admissions misdeeds too. it is wrong wherever it happens.

I'm not sure, though I doubt it as it's an interest group - it's not "for" holding all schools admissions to account. That's how the legal system works, interest groups with the money and man power take on cases individuals couldn't reasonably do.

I hope and imagine there are other interest groups that would/ do take up the case in the other areas you mention. I'd certainly understand their outrage and suppor their position if the govt. tried to stop them doing that in their area, and particularly if in doing so it dismissed them as "vexatious" despite them winning 97% of their cases and every school they compalined about being found to have broken the law.

I'm sure generally the BHA supports fair admission across the country, though when it comes to taking on cases the remit is going to be specific. Seems fair enough to me.

aye - but the BHA's "interest" is promoting Humanism, no?

In terms of its work as an interest group (ie the sort of cases it has the expertise and contacts to help with) perhaps more precisely described as promoting secularism. But yes... Hence why a case of a faith school unfairly discriminating is a case it might legitimately get involved with, whereas a different type of unlawful discrimination wouldn't be one for it to directly assist with (though no doubt the vast majority of its members would sympathise. Who wouldn't? Who is FOR unlawful discrimination against kids?!)

[Prufrock]

Now Sir, if you want me to believe that they don't have wider ulterior motives, then I suspect you think I'm greener and hairier than is actually the case.

Of course they do. There aren't many people walking around the law courts who don't have some kind of ulterior motive (mine's getting paid!). Still, it's a nonsense to describe as "vexatious" (Law - denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant.) an organisation that has won 97% of its cases on this point and didn't lose the other. It's also ridiculous that the Govt., upon finding out that several schools are breaking its own laws decides that it should be attacking not those schools, but the organisation that helped the parents get justice.

[thebish]

In terms of its work as an interest group (ie the sort of cases it has the expertise and contacts to help with) perhaps more precisely described as promoting secularism. But yes... Hence why a case of a faith school unfairly discriminating is a case it might legitimately get involved with, whereas a different type of unlawful discrimination wouldn't be one for it to directly assist with (though no doubt the vast majority of its members would sympathise. Who wouldn't? Who is FOR unlawful discrimination against kids?!)

hmmm... on their website, they make this statement about who they are...

We work on behalf of non-religious people who seek to live ethical lives on the basis of reason and humanity. We promote Humanism, a secular state, and equal treatment of everyone regardless of religion or belief. Our celebrants provide non-religious funeral, wedding, and naming ceremonies.

so - wouldn't it follow that if they are running a campaign against unfair treatment of people seeking schools admission - then they should do it for everyone (equal treatment for everyone - like their statement says they do) rather than based on whether it is a faith-school (which is what they seem to do and say they don't do - "regardless of religion or belief")?

(they do say they promote humanism, btw..)

[Worthy4England]

Now Sir, if you want me to believe that they don't have wider ulterior motives, then I suspect you think I'm greener and hairier than is actually the case.

Of course they do. There aren't many people walking around the law courts who don't have some kind of ulterior motive (mine's getting paid!). Still, it's a nonsense to describe as "vexatious" (Law - denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant.) an organisation that has won 97% of its cases on this point and didn't lose the other. It's also ridiculous that the Govt., upon finding out that several schools are breaking its own laws decides that it should be attacking not those schools, but the organisation that helped the parents get justice.

My ulterior motive is usually getting away with it. I can see some of that argument such as her maybe having a problem with legally vexatious. That said, many cases are won on case law technicalities - so I'm not having "success rate" as any guarantee of common sense either - by getting the pi$$ed up fart in the wig to vote for your side and given all the claptrap I've seen reposted about Richard fcking Dawkins on here over the years, I'm struggling to be sympathetic at all to any sense of fair mindedness. Fck 'em.

[Prufrock]

In terms of its work as an interest group (ie the sort of cases it has the expertise and contacts to help with) perhaps more precisely described as promoting secularism. But yes... Hence why a case of a faith school unfairly discriminating is a case it might legitimately get involved with, whereas a different type of unlawful discrimination wouldn't be one for it to directly assist with (though no doubt the vast majority of its members would sympathise. Who wouldn't? Who is FOR unlawful discrimination against kids?!)

hmmm... on their website, they make this statement about who they are...

We work on behalf of non-religious people who seek to live ethical lives on the basis of reason and humanity. We promote Humanism, a secular state, and equal treatment of everyone regardless of religion or belief. Our celebrants provide non-religious funeral, wedding, and naming ceremonies.

so - wouldn't it follow that if they are running a campaign against unfair treatment of people seeking schools admission - then they should do it for everyone (equal treatment for everyone - like their statement says they do) rather than based on whether it is a faith-school (which is what they seem to do and say they don't do - "regardless of religion or belief")?

(they do say they promote humanism, btw..)

What you can do as an interest group in a legal setting is not the same as what you campaign for as a charity. I would expect to read something on the Stonewall website along the lines of "we promote equal treatment of everyone regardless of sexuality". You wouldn't expect to see Stonewall leading a campaign against faith schools unfairly discriminating against schools on the basis of religion. WHY NOT?! YOU ARE FOR EQUAL TREATMENT FOR EVERYONE. Again, who isn't FOR equal treatment. But clearly different interest groups have different expertise (and particular passions) in different areas.

And it's not just for the obvious reason that that's not what the campaign group is for. In order to be involved in these cases, you can't just show up, you need to show you have a particular interest, basically you need to show that there is no-one else better who could argue this case. So when there is a case regarding religious discrimination, a charity that promotes a secular state and equality regardless of religious beleif will in many case be able to pass that test, they clearly have an interest. The same argument doesn't work if the case turns on unfair selection ue to catchment areas, or academic ability or any other unrelated issue.

Religious groups generally tend to claim to be "for" good. They don't get involved in every do-gooder court case. Only the ones there is a clear interest.

Like abortion.

[Prufrock]

Now Sir, if you want me to believe that they don't have wider ulterior motives, then I suspect you think I'm greener and hairier than is actually the case.

Of course they do. There aren't many people walking around the law courts who don't have some kind of ulterior motive (mine's getting paid!). Still, it's a nonsense to describe as "vexatious" (Law - denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant.) an organisation that has won 97% of its cases on this point and didn't lose the other. It's also ridiculous that the Govt., upon finding out that several schools are breaking its own laws decides that it should be attacking not those schools, but the organisation that helped the parents get justice.

My ulterior motive is usually getting away with it. I can see some of that argument such as her maybe having a problem with legally vexatious. That said, many cases are won on case law technicalities - so I'm not having "success rate" as any guarantee of common sense either - by getting the pi$$ed up fart in the wig to vote for your side and given all the claptrap I've seen reposted about Richard fcking Dawkins on here over the years, I'm struggling to be sympathetic at all to any sense of fair mindedness. Fck 'em.

These weren't high falutin' points of law. There are rules that say how schools can or cannot discriminate. It's a question of fact in each case, did they breach them? In every single case the school was found to have broken the law. When accusation at one end is of vexatious, ie having no grounds to even argue the case (you can quite easily lose every single case and not be vexatious, the only question is was there an arguable ground), and at the other end you have a 97% success rate, it's pretty clear the accusation is bollocks.

Anyway, I'm most struck by the great Morisettian irony of it: There is no Legal Aid for cases like this. The state isn't supporting the parents. Instead, a 4th sector (vom!) group has stepped in to provide a service that in times of 'ore the state might have done. For nil cost to the tax-payer. This IS the Big Society. What does the Govt do? Ban it. Of course.

[Worthy4England]

I still don't care.

[Prufrock]

F*cking Tory.

[Worthy4England]

^^ Noted for it...Honours List next year, you watch.

[Enoch]

She's a dick.

One that likely has a glittering career ahead. Albeit without the qualifying appendage, not that that troubled Margaret.

She deffo had a qualifying appendage.

Which one do you have in mind?

[Worthy4England]

Handbag.