We have received the following email with the link back to this website. We felt it was important to pass on this information to other home educating families, to keep them informed.
If you are leaving or have left EO or are looking for another Home Ed organization for any reason, you will find a link to HEAS (Home Education Advisory Service) and another to Home Service (The UK's Christian Home Ed organization) in the right hand column under 'links'.
Please bear in mind that this is one woman's personal story and her first hand experience of the situation. We know there is more than one side to every story, but this does raise some questions that we feel should be answered by someone.
We are posting this simply in an effort to make other Home educators aware of what is going on across the UK regarding Home Education. - Deedee
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you don't want to read my email below, then just go here...
http://www.takebackyourfreedom.co.uk/section1116.htm
I have kept quiet about EO for some time now, but their latest actions lead me to believe that they are harming the position of home educators in this country. I am sharing my story and a little bit about the current situation in order to warn unsuspecting EO members, what their charity is doing. Feel free to cross post this to other local lists, as people are not allowed to discuss these things on the EO list or the EO forums.
Many of you will know that after 12 years of volunteering for EO, I found myself suspended for stating that I thought the charity had elected certain persons to the council (trustess) who did not have the welfare of the charity uppermost in their minds. I stated that their position as a trustee would harm EO's reputation at a time when the onslaught against home education was beginning based on child protection concerns and EO needed its reputation more than ever. I was publicly insulted on this list by a trustee - called a whitchunter and a liar. I was suspended by trustees at a closed meeting, which I was not allowed to attend. The person who wrote to me to inform me of my suspension as a local contact, did not know anything about it, but was only doing what she was told. I wrote several letters to trustees, asking why I had been suspended, and asking for an apology from the trustee who had insulted me. They did not answer, except to say that they were taking legal advice.
10 months later, I was told why I had been suspended and was offerred an ultimatum - to attend mediation or be sacked. I was told what I would be allowed to discuss at the mediation, and when I said that was not acceptable, I was sacked. Shortly after that, my membership lapsed and I was hoping to leave the whole thing behind me. I had thought that those trustees who were angry with me, and several other former volunteers, would get back to working for their members once they sacked a few of us. Unfortunately, I have spent the past couple of years hearing snippets of news about the behaviour of EO's trustees that leaves me with mouth agape, wondering what in the hell they think they are doing.
They have now taken two members to court over the release of information about those members with voting rights. There was a bit of an upset over Christmas as the trustees called a last minute EGM in order to vote on changes to the Articles and Memorandum which would reduce the number of trustees, allow them to get rid of anybody they wanted, (which they do anyway) and allow them to be paid by the charity for services. Two members, Kevin Denton and Lizelle Van Den Bergh, asked to be put in touch with other voting members, (signed-up members) in order to discuss the issues. EO refused to give them that information, citing data protection concerns. Mr Denton and Ms VanDen Bergh made a formal request for this information based on the legalities of the Companies Act. You can read all about this on the above website. EO has contested the requirement to release the information and has taken these two members to court.
EO has now stated that personal data of signed up members is sensitive data that they should not have to release because a significant number of home educators are abuse victims, and this is why we choose to home educate. This is an excerpt of their statement to the court. (the claimant is EO)
"8. The Claimant is prepared to indicate to the Defendant which individuals on this list are members of the Company. Nevertheless, the Claimant believes it would be inappropriate to provide the Defendants with copies of information beyond this. As can be seen, a significant proportion of the members of the Company are concerned to keep their contact details confidential. I understand that one reason for this is that individuals who home educate their children comprise a significant proportion of individuals who were abused as children, this often being the motivating factor in that individual deciding to home educate their child. I also understand that another reason for seeking confidentiality is because in some cases individuals are hiding from a former abusive partner, hence their desire to home educate their children.
So, at a time when home educators are being associated with Child protection concerns in the media, at a time when there is a review of home education ongoing which is related to child protection concerns (concerns which have no basis in fact), the leading charity supporting home educators in the UK has now stated in a court of law, that a significant proportion of us choose to home educate because we were abused as children.
Many of us will be aware of the link between abusers and victims, ie, most abusers were themselves abused as children. I really don't want home educators to be known as potential abusers. We should be known as nothing less than responsible parents doing something exceptional for our children in the face of a failing education system, and government
bullying. Now we have to deal with EO bullying.
The issues about what is happening in EO are no longer about the charity and its workings. It is affecting home educators everywhere. It has been ongoing for a few years now, and while there are still several people who are trying very hard to save EO and get back to working for the promotion of home education and the support of EO's members, I think it
time that members be encouraged to vote with their feet.
If you are a member of Education Otherwise, you should know what your charity is doing in your name. I do make the assumption that several people will feel as I do, that EO is harming the position of home educators in this country. Cancel your memberships- let them lapse- EO is doing nothing for you.
Julie Ridley
|
March 27, 2009 - More than one version of the truth
No doubt some of you will have read emails discrediting me and my motives - I'm aware that many have been sent behind my back as have had some forwarded to me, not for what I've done but because of what a few others have "said" I've done. It's interesting that this had been a repeating pattern within EO against those who don't toe the line since it was incorporated according to older members and my own knowledge - it's starting to change now for the better - but change is a long process I guess. I find it really sad that some are ready to believe any scandal or dissing of others and act on it without even checking whether it's correct. I have training in mediation and am aware that for any issue there are as many truths as people involved and that it is all too easy for people's views to get entrenched, particularly when they're reinforced by others; it's also true that mediation won't work if those involved aren't prepared to move from their 'position' to address an issue. Goebbels statement that a lie repeated many times becomes the truth is a very sad reflection of the current reality.
It's also extremely sad that at a critical time for home educators a number prefer to spend their time getting at others rather than putting their energy into the real issues which risk all our freedoms and those of our children. Julie doesn't mention precisely what things she did say that led to her suspension, nor EO's vicarious liability for them as she was a volunteer, nor what she has written about others in emails; nor the public apology that was necessitated during a camp; nor other actions which perhaps aren't public domain.
I wonder why Julie's actions aren't common knowledge unlike her allegations about EO and individuals which are widely discussed on lists and at camps - could it be because those aware of the truth prefer not to splash their concerns far and wide, discrediting others, but attempt to move on for everyone's benefit. I've heard it repeated that authorities "concerns" such as Julie mentions won't take action - maybe rather than these authorities being corrupt as has been stated, it's because there is nothing to take action over??
I find it even sadder that a number of home educators are ready to believe a totally one-sided account and react to it. I've been shocked by what I've been reading lately on a number of home ed lists which appears to be no more than hate mail and confirmation bias, much of it directed at EO or it's trustees - weird as many of them are new and unknown to those making the allegations - perhaps just by becoming a trustee you are tainted and become corrupt - I wonder if people think this happens the instant you volunteer or at a set point afterwards??
This issue has been ongoing since 2006 and earlier for some, whilst others have been caught up in it over the time since then. It doesn't do anyone any good to dwell on such negativity and hatred. It's nothing to do with EO, beyond confirmation bias of a few - but rather personal issues that the individuals concerned would do better addressing with those people rather than trying to gain support by posting untruths on multiple email lists.
There are so many positive things we could and should be doing right now to promote and publicise home education before our right to do so is curtailed or legislated against and we're tied up in red tape and the insanity of proving we're providing a "suitable education".
Can I also set the record straight re the repeated allegation that EO has "taken 2 members to court" - Under section 116/117 of the companies act 2006 if a request is made for a copy of the Register of Members then a company either has to comply with this within 5 days or go to court to ask a judge to make a decision which is what trustees opted to do because it's members had not been aware that their private details could be disclosed, nobody was taken to court.
The other parties in this case decided to contest EO's actions; equally they could have accepted EO's compromises or done nothing; the judge still would have made a decision. I'm not going into this only to say the comment I keep hearing that EO is taking members to court, just like many other untrue and inaccurate accusations, many far more serious; but I guess their emotive nature serves a purpose.
Similarly trustees have already stated and it's been widely posted that the statement Julie copies was not the one agreed by them with their lawyer.
It was also not put into the public domain where it could be viewed by Government officials or anyone to the detriment of home educators - by EO.
Lynda elyris@gmail.com
Company Act 2006.
Section 117 - Register of members: response to request for inspection or copy
(1) Where a company receives a request under section 116 (register of members: right to inspect and require copy), it must within five working days either
(a) comply with the request, or
(b) apply to the court.
(2) If it applies to the court it must notify the person making the request.
(3) If on an application under this section the court is satisfied that the inspection or copy is not sought for a proper purpose
(a) it shall direct the company not to comply with the request, and
(b) it may further order that the companys costs (in Scotland, expenses) on the application be paid in whole or in part by the person who made the request, even if he is not a party to the application.
(4) If the court makes such a direction and it appears to the court that the company is or may be subject to other requests made for a similar purpose (whether made by the same person or different persons), it may direct that the company is not to comply with any such request.
The order must contain such provision as appears to the court appropriate to identify the requests to which it applies.
(5) If on an application under this section the court does not direct the company not to comply with the request, the company must comply with the request immediately upon the court giving its decision or, as the case may be, the proceedings being discontinued.