Friday, 21 January 2022

Weightloss Update

Or more truthfully, that should be a weight gain update.

I wasn't losing weight despite seeing my Personal Trainer twice a week, and then December hit.  That means watching every Christmas film on Netflix, and then attempting (and failing) to watch every Christmas film on My5.  In fact, I typed "christmas" into the My5 search, and was going through all the Christmas films in alphabetical order.  As they show a film every afternoon, the list was updating every day, and I purposely did not go back to watch the films that had been added after I passed that letter.  Even still, I only managed to get to the end of the letter C.  (There are sooooo many films that are called either "A Christmas in... " or "Christmas in... "!)  Added to that was possibly excessive mince pie consumption (can you blame me?! Mmmmmm.... Mince pies.....) my weight increased to the highest weight I've been ever.  Surprisingly, though, I did not gain much from Christmas and New Year's themselves, and I started January at a whopping 104.7kg.  Any my progress photos, which I won't scare you with, actually look worse than when I started with my PT back in April. Yikes. 

I did already have a plan for the new year to meal prep.  My husband and I had become aware that we had regressed into buying takeaways when we cba to cook or worse, we wanted to cook but had time constraints or we hadn't defrosted anything in time.  I already owned one meal prep book, but it didn't really teach how to do it, beyond being a recipe book, so I asked for a book for Christmas: Low Calorie Meal Prep Cookbook.

I started following the weekly meal guides - the first week was breakfast only, the second week was breakfasts and lunch, the third week (this week) is breakfast, lunch and dinner, and weeks 4, 5 and 6 all have breakfast, lunch, dinner and a snack planned.  I have had to purchase some more containers for storage, and my fridges are now full at the start of each week.

The foods in the book are actually really tasty.  I have learned that supermarket fruit and veg don't actually last a week when prepped, which is a shame as it means I need to do a mid-week prep for the fresh food.  And it takes aaaaages on a Sunday afternoon, but as my PT pointed out to me, that I would be spending at least that much time during the week making breakfast, lunch and dinner every day.

Some examples of the meals I've been eating include Veggie Quiche Bento Boxes, Tuna and Hummus Wrap, Tropical Smoothie, and Chicken and White Bean Chilli.  Though my 3 favourite meals, so far, have been swiftly demolished before I've had a chance to take a photograph: Southwestern Black-bean Quesadilla, Chicken and Gnocchi Soup and Honey-Sriracha Chicken with Noodles. Yum.

I've also started using My Fitness Pal again, to record my calorie intake, and I've signed up to a 4-week bootcamp in February. Incredibly, I am seeing weightloss already!  I am weighing myself on a Monday morning (so I will restart the weekly updates) and over the first 2 weeks of eating these meals, I have lost 3 kilograms!  My PT said to challenge myself and aim for getting below 100kg by the end of January - and I thought that was a bit optimistic, tbh.  But, I seem to be on track at the moment! As expected, I lost more weight the first week, than in the second, and we have to wait until next Monday to see what this third week has done for me.  I have started drinking tea again (vanilla flavour rooibos - delicious) with a couple of drops of stevia, to satisfy my sweet tooth, and I've been having one of those 10calorie jellies as a dessert after dinner.  I haven't been depriving myself, and have actually had a takeaway every week in January, I've just tried to be sensible about it - eg choosing tandoori chicken with vegetable side dishes, rather than my usual tikka massala, pilau rice and peshwari naan.  And I've managed to have the odd glass of alcohol (red wine, or even a baileys) if it fits within my calorie allowance.  (My calorie allowance is currently 1500kcals in MFP because I have set it up to aim to lose 0.5kg/week.)

So, that's where we are. I was 101.7kg on Monday, and I hope I will continue to lose weight, get fitter and get healthier.

Wednesday, 19 January 2022

My books of 2021


Last year, I set myself the target of reading 50 books, which I hit.  I think I've actually read a couple more than 52, as I still (sorry!) have some reviews to write up, and I don't always add them to Goodreads if I haven't done the review.  If you are a Goodreads user, feel free to click this link to follow me there too.

This next year, I've set myself the even more modest target of 24 books in a year.  This is because I barely wait whilst the girls are dancing anymore, so I have less time to read actually structured into my week.  I also (before last week) hadn't read anything since about October.  I had less free time, and in December you have to watch as many made-for-TV crappy Christmas movies as you can.  It's the law.

Here's a pictorial summary of all the reading I did last year, and I'll give a link to each review below.



Christian Inspirational

Thursday, 13 January 2022

I'm Back!

Hello my lovelies, how are you all?  

Ok, if you follow my facebook page I said my first post this year would be about books, but I've decided to give a brief overview about everything instead. And if you don't follow my facebook page, why on earth not?? Tut, tut, tut. 😜 Here's the link again, so you have no excuse:

So, I purposely had a break for Christmas, and it was needed.  I've come back this year feeling refreshed and ready to go.  Last week, however, I went to get ready for my first tutorial and my my computer had died.

Not only did the Automatic Repair not work, it wouldn't move off this screen.  I cancelled my tutorials and left it to my techy husband (they do have their uses, lol).  He used some techy magic to recover most of my files, but he couldn't get windows to work.  We wiped everything, started again, and windows still wouldn't work.  He even installed Linux, and even that operating system wouldn't work.  The hard disk was dead as dead can be.

After having to handwrite a comparison spreadsheet (I'm not joking, I am that geeky, and it took two A4 pages), I decided upon and bought a new laptop. Yey!  There are a couple of snags* with it, that I'm sure will be able to be sorted quickly, but overall I'm really pleased with it.
* There is automatically a background noise remover thingy on the microphone, which would be great, except now it stops my headset working with zoom when tutoring.  The only way to bypass is to not use my headset, so all my tutees are rewarded with sounds of my dogs barking in the background.  Should be a simple fix; husband will look at it later.
* Everything on my laptop is automatically saving to One Drive.  I use One Drive for music and photos, but all my large tutoring or Ed Free documents, I do not need nor want saving all the time.  It means I'm getting lots of notifications saying One Drive is full, and adverts where I can buy infinite (nearly) space for only £££ each month.  Again, a simple fix, but I'm ignoring it for now.

What's new with me? Well, yesterday was 20 years since I asked my (now) husband to go out with me.  Very forward of me, but he was/is shyer than me, if you can believe such a thing. Actually, if you know me now, you probably can believe it, but 20 years ago I was a mouse in comparison.  I thought he fancied me, and asked a couple of my friends a few months earlier, and they said that I was just imagining it, and he was just a good friend.  Anyway, in the January, we went back to uni and there was a party a friend of a friend was throwing and we tagged along.  We got drunk enough for me to ask him if he fancied me and for him to say yes - and then I ignored it and continued with the party!  It wasn't until I couldn't sleep that night, because everything was rolling around my head, that I went up to his room and asked him to go out with me, and then went back downstairs to go to sleep. I then didn't see him for 24hrs, because I was at a football match, and wasn't sure if he would remember or if he thought it was a mistake or what.  Ancient history it is, as we're now married, 17 years this coming August, with 2 kids, 2 dogs, and still happy.

I have started reading again - hurray! I don't think I had read anything seriously since about October.  I tend not to read much in December, because it's tacky Christmas movie season, but I had missed reading.  I don't have as much time to read as previously, only an hour on a Saturday of dedicated reading time (except when/if I read a good book, and it takes over my life for a few days), but I'm glad to have started reading regularly again.

And I've started calorie counting.  After hitting my heaviest weight ever after Christmas, I am properly tracking my food in MFP and have been meal prepping. I'm only on week 2, so it's not an established habit yet, but I have lost weight already, which keeps me motivated.

I'm going to my first naturist/clothing optional event for what seems like forever tonight.  Covid, of course, has stopped everything, but theatres are starting to reopen, so my husband and I are going to a clothing optional showing tonight, so that will be fun.

What's not new with me? Still tutoring maths.  Still involved in the home ed world.  Still have my personal trainer twice a week. Still going to church. Still ferrying the girls to dance every night of the week. Still me.

And that's about it!  I hope you all had a good Christmas and New years.  I did.  And that you are well xx

Tuesday, 23 November 2021

Notes from 11KBW Webinar about the Portsmouth JR

These are my notes from the webinar hosted by Paul Greatorex (who stood for PCC) and James Cornwell (who stood for the Secretary of State).

As these are notes, they are written in note form.

The presentation was split into four sections:

  1. The Law
  2. The Case
  3. The Implications
  4. Q&A session
1. The Law

1996 Education Act: s7, s9, s13, s436 and s437.
2002 Ed Act: s175

Case Law: 
Talmud Torah 1985 - definition of "suitable" education is if it equips a child for life in their community.
Tandy 1998 - suitability is determined by education not resources
Tweedy and Pritchard 1963 - if the LA doesn't see a child, it may trigger NTS
Phillips vs Brown 1980 - LA allowed to ask for information.  If no information is given, LA may trigger NTS.

Children Missing Education Documents

2. The Case

Portsmouth changed their policy, blaming it on the 2019 guidance, to say that a report alone is unlikely to be sufficient.
The Claimant's reports were very detailed, but PCC didn't believe them.
PCC wanted to know the reading and writing levels of the children.

The case was NO challenge to LA's assessment of suitability.
The case was NO challenged based on the change of policy from previous years.

[my paraphrase] After providing work samples for 4 or 5 years in a row, then the LA may simply accept a report.
[My comment] ie samples of work must be provided in most cases.

All LAs are acting lawfully if they ask for more than just a report.

3. Implications

There's nothing wrong with LAs requesting evidence as part of the initial informal request.

LAs can ask for corroborative evidence, eg work samples or to meet the child.

4. Q&As

Dismisses the suggestion that work is the IP of the child.
SEN - doesn't prevent HE.
Different educational philosophies should be no problem, but they recommend a timetable etc

You are NOT in breach of s7 if you knowingly send your child to a school that is in special measures.  Apparently the age/ability/aptitude bit only applies if you do not send your child to school, not if you do.

LAs are not legally entitled to endter the home nor see the child.

If an LA writes unlawful policy, the first set is to complain through the LA's complaints process, then next step would be to take it to JR.

They didn't answer my question about section 6.12 of EHEDGLA which states "Of course, the local authority should give reasonable weight to information provided by parents, on its own merits. For example, an authority should not dismiss information provided by parents simply because it is not in a particular form preferred by the authority".


When I have more time, I might come back to this to link to the relevant docs etc.

Thursday, 18 November 2021

Portsmouth JR - Part 2

Yesterday I started my read-through of this report of the JR, and today I will be continuing.
It's probably worth your while reading my previous summary, so you are aware of the facts of the case.

H Discussion
This is the meaty part of the report.  This is when we get away from the facts, and look at the arguments and reasoning behind the decisions that have been made.  It is from Paragraph 65 onwards.

There are four grounds that have been brought before the court:

  1. The LA puts the burden of proof on the HErs which is inconsistent with the statutory guidance.
  2. The LA will not accept just a report, even if there are  no grounds for concern, and will proceed directly to NTS.
  3. The LA has a policy of issuing NTS without specifying the areas of concern.
  4. The LA has a policy of issuing NTS with no concerns and without suggesting the education is unsuitable.
Ground 1:
The LA puts the burden of proof on the HErs when they should be making "informal enquiries".  Once a NTS has been served, then the burden falls on parents to satisfy the LA and not before.

Unsurprisingly, the laywers (or solicitors - I can never remember the difference.  I'm going to use the term "lawyer" and if it's wrong, it's wrong) for both the LA and the Secretary of State take issue with this.  The LA's lawyer claims that thinking this way "misconstrues and overcomplicates what is intended to be a simple and straightforward process."!!  Personally, I think "innocent until proven guilty" is quite a simple process myself, but that's just me...

I would like to read a full transcript of the dialogue as to how the judge came up with this conclusion.  Given the parent is responsible, according to s7, and have a duty to ensure the education a child is given is suitable - how can they not be able to determine or be trusted to know when that is the case?  Seems arse-backwards to me (to use a phrase my mum says).

Paragraph 72 says 
"Section 436A(2) provides that, in exercising those functions, the local authority must have regard to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State. I note that there is nothing in this subsection that restricts the duty to guidance that is specifically categorised as statutory in nature."

i.e. the judge is saying that because the guidance doesn't limit what LAs can ask for, they can whatever they want of parents and parents have to comply.  

Paragraphs 84-86:

"As the correspondence between the defendant and the claimant make plain, the defendant began its enquiries with an open mind. It was only when faced with what it regarded as insufficient material from the claimant that the informal inquiries continued, leading to the impasse which then meant it appeared to the defendant that the children were not receiving a suitable education at home. As Mr Cornwell submits, the threshold at this point is a low one. It merely requires the defendant to take a view, as matters then stand, challengeable only on public law grounds.
The four paragraphs of "clarification" which the defendant inserted in its guidance in late 2020, and subsequently removed, have no material bearing on ground 1. Insofar as the language used indicates that, at the informal inquiries stage, a parent may have the task of providing evidence that shows a suitable education is being provided, the clarification accurately describe the statutory scheme, as explained by the Secretary of State's guidance. The same is true of the paragraph under "definition of suitable education", added in late 2020, which is to the same effect.
Ground 1 accordingly fails."

These paragraphs basically say that the HEr did not give enough information to the LA, therefore it's their own fault they were served NTS and SAO.  The judge also says that whilst the "clarification" the LA used has no bearing on Ground 1, it is accurate and lawful.

Grounds 2 & 3

The LA will not accept just a report, even if there are  no grounds for concern, and will proceed directly to NTS.
The LA has a policy of issuing NTS without specifying the areas of concern.

Despite the evidence to the contrary, (I don't think I've mentioned yet, but 40% of the home educators in Portsmouth have been issued with NTS, compared to under 2% on average in other LAs), the judge says "I do not consider it is a fair analysis of the defendant's position".

"The real ambit of ground 2 is that the claimant says the defendant has adopted a rigid stance, whereby it will reject reports provided by parents, in deciding whether a child is receiving suitable education at home. This amounts to an unlawful fettering of the defendant's discretion: R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex p Venables  [1997] 3 All ER 97
This contains lots of legalese, that I'll try and unpick (mainly because I've had to look up the meanings myself). 'Ambit' means 'line in the sand'. 'Fettering Discretion' means 'rather than exercising discretion, it fetters [binds] itself to someone else's views/policies'. 

So because Portsmouth LA's policy uses the word "unlikely" it means there is the slimmest of possibilities that a report alone will be accepted, and therefore it isn't unlawful - according to the judge.

Paragraphs 92 and 93 basically say that because the LA's policy uses words like "might", "example" and "not an exhaustive list", the fact that it is asking for things that the government's policy specifically says are not required is not a problem at all. 

Most worrying is Paragraph 94:


As can readily be seen, in the present case the defendant did not reject the claimant's reports because they were not in a particular form. The defendant's concerns were substantive ones. Despite the length of the claimant's reports, they were wholly assertive in nature. They contained nothing by way of actual work produced by the children. To take the example of work on To Kill a Mockingbird, which featured in submissions at the hearing, there was no material showing the degree of comprehension of the appellant's daughter concerning the novel; merely a series of statements from the claimant."

So the judge is saying that because the reports did not include examples of the children's work, the word of the parents' cannot be trusted.  They are simply a series of words by the HEr and the presumption that the parents are lying about their children's activities and education is just.

To say that again, the judge is saying that parents cannot be trusted.

I have no words, other than disgust, tbh.  If a parent is going to lie about this, they can easily fake 'work' by the children - whether it be searching on the internet, or writing things in their own handwriting.  It's all bollox.

Paragraph 95 doesn't help the situation: "The affidavit, produced by the claimant and her husband, takes matters no further. It does not change the nature of the reports, to which the affidavit refers."
i.e. The judge is saying that it doesn't matter if the parents produce a legal document stating everything they have said is true, it (and they) still cannot be trusted.

Paragraph 96 says: "In any event, the defendant's policy properly takes account of the 2019 guidance documents of the Secretary of State; and there is no challenge to the lawfulness of these"
I don't know to which the "these" refers to in the previous sentence?  If it means the lawfulness of the 2019 guidance, fine.  However, if it means the lawfulness of Portsmouth LA's policy, then I think this was a big gap in the case, and should have been included.

In Paragraph 98, the judge quotes the DfE guidance: "2.12. However, many home-educating families do some of these, at least, by choice. Furthermore, is likely to be much easier for you to show that the education provided is suitable if attention has been paid to the breadth of the curriculum and its content, and the concepts of progress and assessment in relation to your child's ability."

The judge is basically saying that "paying attention to" isn't enough.  You have to be able to document - which is more than what the guidance says.  I don't think this is lawful, despite what the judge says.  [Note: I repeat that I am not a lawyer, nor am I giving legal advice.]

Paragraph 99 goes further, and says that the LA "could" (which we know that LAs will take to mean "should") meet the child and/or examine the child's work.  What about the rights of the child?  What if they don't want their intellectual property shared?  What if they have been traumatised at school, or have some other issue that means that when they meet new people in authority, they freeze? Or maybe they are defiant, or simply refuse to be a dancing monkey?

Paragraph 101 is telling.  Despite saying repeatedly in different ways that parents cannot be trusted, the judge says "I see no reason not to take the defendant at its word." Parents cannot be trusted, but the LA always can. <eyeroll>
The judge says "
The fact that, in the present case, the claimant's report has not been sufficient" - I'm not convinced that has been proved tbh.  The fact is that the LA has claimed it is not sufficient, not that it actually is not sufficient. - my mistake, the LA can always be trusted.  Silly me...
The judge also uses the term "home-schooled".  I would have hoped that a judge in a home education case would have least learnt the basic terminology, but again, I'm clearly in the wrong for thinking that.

Still in paragraph 101, the judge says "Once a local authority has satisfied itself, by reference to the Secretary of State's guidance, that suitable education is actually being received by a child who is being home-schooled, a subsequent inquiry in respect of the same parent and child might be satisfactorily answered by production of a report along the lines of that produced by the claimant."

So, going back to the facts of this case, the HEr has previously given reports that were accepted and the child's education deemed suitable.  Then, in 2020 the HEr gave a subsequent report "along the lines of that produced by the claimant" (given it was the report produced by the claimant) and this was not accepted.  Why not, given the judges statement above?  

Paragraph 102 says "Finally under these grounds, I address the contention of the claimant that she is under no legal duty to respond to the initial or informal inquiries of the defendant."
Where was this claimed or contended?  It's not in this document, that's for sure.  The HEr has said that she has no legal duty to respond in the way the LA wishes - and that is true - but it is clear from the facts of the case that she has responded and repeatedly so!

Paragraph 103: "Grounds 2 and 3 accordingly fail."

Ground 4
The LA has a policy of issuing NTS with no concerns and without suggesting the education is unsuitable.
(Paragraphs 104 & 105)

This is a short section, because it seems the judge has got bored by now and cba.

Paragraph 105:

"Much of this has already been covered in the earlier grounds.  I find that the defendant does not have a policy of issuing an NTS in circumstances where it has no concerns.  The allegation of inconsistency with the legal framework and statutory guidance is unparticularised. It is in, any event, wrong for the reasons given in respect of Ground 1."


"Each of the claimant's grounds fails."

That's it.  That is literally all it says in the conclusion section and we are at the end of the document.

So, my thoughts and musings...

  • The judge seems to have no understanding of home education or learning without school.
  • Portsmouth's policy is so clearly over the line, yet the judge seems to have judged whether or not the HEr has adhered to the LA's policy rather than the lawfulness of the policy itself.
  • There seem to be some obvious contradictions, that the judge has either overlooked or not understood.
  • The bias of the judge towards the LA and against the parents is astounding - though this case is about home education, that alone (ie that parents can't be trusted) should send shockwaves through all families and it could have huge ramifications.
What can/should be do?

Firstly, we should send our love and support to the home educators in Portsmouth.  They have worked so hard, and well done to this family in particular for standing up and fighting.  No doubt they'll be in for some stick from some quarters, but it was a very brave thing to do and the right thing to do.

Then, at the moment, we shouldn't change what we're doing.  I know some unschoolers are panicking and thinking that they need to monitor and evidence every little thing - if that's what you want to do, go ahead, but please do it for yourself and not with the intention of giving it to the LA.  At least, not yet.

My prefered path is one of civil resistance or disobedience.  Keep giving brief reports etc as is our right.  Do respond when the LA contacts you, but they should accept the information how you provide it (rather than demanding how it should be provided).  Hold out for as long as you can.  For some people this may be when they issue a SAO; at this point, overload the LA with information, dated (even with random dates - how can the LA prove anything??) and shuffled.  Make the LA work for their money. For other brave souls, it may be when they get taken to court, or beyond. Don't let me tell you what to do - do what is right for your own family.

I'm going to end this post by linking to a list of 198 Methods of Non-Violent Action - just in case it is useful for anyone...


Wednesday, 17 November 2021

Portsmouth Judicial Review - Readthrough Part 1

 Yesterday we had the bad news that the home educators in Portsmouth had lost the Judicial Review.

A lot of people are now panicking about what this means, especially for unschoolers, but at the moment we need to be patient, let Portsmouth HErs regroup and talk to their solicitor in order to determine whether there are any next steps and what they mean.

In the meantime, I thought I'd do a readthrough of the report in case it is helpful to anyone.

(Note: I am not a lawyer.  I have not studied law.  This is not legal advice or assertions, but my own thoughts and feelings, which may be wrong if I haven't understood the nuances.) 

THIS is the link to the full 105 paragraphs of the report.  It is split into 

  • A Introduction; 
  • B Permission and Hearing; 
  • C Statutory Framework; 
  • D Secretary of State's Guidance 
    • (1) Children Missing Education 2016; 
    • (2) Elective Home Education Guidance to Local Authorities 2019;
    • (3) Elective Home Education Parents 2019;
  • E Defendant's Policy Guidance;
  • F Case Law;
  • G The Facts of the Present Case;
  • H Discussion;
  • Conclusion.
The Claiment is Christina Goodread (Portsmouth Home Educator).  Though she alone is named in this JR, she isn't the sole person to whom Portsmouth LA have acted unlawfully.  I wouldn't want any readers to mistakenly think that this is a case from one woman who has simply not been reasonable.

The Defendant is Portsmouth City Council (ie the LA).

And the Secretary of State is the Intervener - someone called to be neutral and give clarity about the situation.  [This may be one of those times I'm wrong.  Here's a link to a definition of an Intervener.]
What is interesting about the definition I've linked to, is that the Intervener shouldn't have a direct interest in the lawsuit (though they may have interest in the outcome).  I don't think the Secretary of State is neutral nor the best person for this role, but back to the text.

A Introduction
Basically, Portsmouth HErs are saying that their children are being suitably educated and Portsmouth LA are imposing an unlawful burden on them, because the LA's policy on EHE is unlawful.

B Permission and Hearing
I don't really understand this section tbh.  Something was refused, even though permission was at one point granted, because the claimant's reasoning had changed.
Then there's a section thanking the Secretary of State for getting involved.

C Statutory Framework
Long list of laws from the Education Act.  
Worth reading through them, if you haven't before, but there's no need for me to comment on it.

D Secretary of State's Guidance
This is a long list of quotes from the various guidances.  If you want to see my thoughts on each of them have a read of the following:
Response to EHE Guidance (LAs) 2019
Comparing HE Guidance for LAs and Parents

E Defendant's Policy Guidance
This is where it starts to get interesting for me, as I haven't read through Portsmouth's policy document before.

Paragraph 35: So, despite listing everything that is not required for HErs to do, Portsmouth LA says
"Furthermore, it is likely to be much easier for a parent to show that the education provided is suitable if attention has been paid to the breadth of the curriculum and its content, and the concepts of progress and assessment in relation to your child's ability."
So, the law and the guidance say you don't have to do this, but tough shit, we're going to make you do it anyway. As a reminder, this is the list that HErs are not required to do:
There are no legal requirements for you as parents educating a child at home to do any of the following:
    • acquire specific qualifications for the task
    • have premises equipped to any particular standard
    • aim for the child to acquire any specific qualifications
    • teach the National Curriculum
    • provide a 'broad and balanced' curriculum
    • make detailed lesson plans in advance
    • give formal lessons
    • mark work done by the child
    • formally assess progress, or set development objectives
    • reproduce school type peer group socialisation
    • match school-based, age-specific standards

Paragraph 36: Then in 2020, the LA added a section into its policy document, stating that the education should be "Broad", "Balanced", "Relevant" and "Differentiated".  That there should be a "curriculum" of some description being used.  All of which are unlawful and go against the guidance.

There is also a list of reasons given as examples of why an education may be deemed unsuitable, including "There is no or very limited examples of work submitted.", "There is no or very limited detail of how the child's progress is being monitored or examples of work to demonstrate relevant progression", and "There is no clear academic or time structure."  Again, all of which are unlawful and go against the guidance.

Paragraph 37: The LA has then 'clarified' by stating " a written report alone, however detailed it may be, should not be relied on in order to satisfy the council that suitable education is taking place." i.e. parents cannot be trusted to tell the truth.  We will not accept a written, signed document.

Paragraph 38:

"The defendant subsequently removed the "clarification", on the basis that it considered the passage was causing unnecessary confusion."

F Case Law
This paragraph goes through a previous example of case law: Phillips vs Brown 1980.  
This is the case where it says that if you don't give any evidence to the LA, they are in their right to assume that education is not taking place.

G The Facts of the Present Case
(Paragraphs 42-64)

H Discussion

At this point I'm going to stop, and I'll write my thoughts about the discussion in a separate blog post (Link to Part 2).
I hope that this has been clear enough for you to see why Portsmouth HErs are right to take this to JR and fight the LA.  It is appalling how this woman, and other HErs in Portsmouth have been treated.

#FairHearing4HomeEd #EducationalFreedom #WeStandWithPortsmouthHErs

Wednesday, 10 November 2021

Yesterday by Amanda Tru

This is the last book in my A-Z Challenge (yes, I'm aware it is only Y, but I'm trying not to buy more books until I have finished all the ones I already have, lol).

The blurb says: 

Her yesterday was five years ago. What will her tomorrow bring?

When HANNAH KRAEGER saves a family injured in a car accident, she has no idea she has changed events in the past. Waking the next morning, Hannah discovers her yesterday was really five years ago.

Each trip Hannah takes through time changes the timeline and her own life. With help from DR. SETH MCALLISTER, Hannah must unravel the mystery of why she time travels and who she actually is before the strange ability costs her future, the man she loves, and even her life.

What I found interesting about this time travel book is that the time travel is not instantaneous.  What I mean, is that when Hannah finds herself back in time, the timeline she left continues so to those around her it looks like she has run away or left.  It also means that she ages at the correct rate for her personal timeline, rather than living life in the past, coming back to the present/future and have aged for no reason to her friends and family.

This book is a sweet romance with a time travel twist. I'm not sure whether to class it as Fantasy or SciFi since the time travel is not because of a machine but because of divine intervention - so I've labelled it as both on the side. >>>

I did enjoy this book.  I liked trying to work out how the stories of the different characters interacted.  I liked seeing whether the romance between Hannah and Seth would blossom and how it was impacted due to her changing things in the past.  It's a nice book.