On The March

I, along with many of my right-leaning compatriots, have become used to being the target of partisan, at times unhinged, vitriol from the liberal left. It's par for the course here in the UK. As an admirer of Mrs.Thatcher, I learned to avoid unguarded moments when I was tempted to offer praise for all the positive things our former PM achieved for this country. Being a Thatcherite was always treated with disdain: the burning of her effigy, which I witnessed in Trafalgar Square just after her death, made me ashamed to be British. It was best to hold my counsel.

Now a leader has taken office in the USA whose unpopularity makes Margaret Thatcher appear almost saintly in the eyes of the public. There was one banner being carried down Whitehall yesterday suggesting President Trump is a threat to humanity. Some critics have likened him to Adolf Hitler, which is an appalling insult to every family still alive who lost a loved one at the hands of the Nazis.

Just as the 'remoaners' here in the UK described people like me who voted for Brexit as ill informed/stupid/closet racists/bigots, so anyone either side of the Atlantic daring to voice his or her support for Donald Trump is attacked in similar insulting terms.

Both the remoaners and the Hilary Clinton supporters agreed to the referendum/presidential selection rules beforehand, so why the sour grapes now? Because neither group expected to lose.

And what about the reason for these latest demonstrations in both America and here in the UK? President Trump has introduced a temporary ban on visa holders from seven countries: Iraq/Syria/Iran/Libya/Somalia/Sudan and Yemen. Such has been the unalloyed outrage you'd have thought he'd just ordered the countries' inhabitants to be slaughtered en masse. What's more, in 2001 plans were drawn up by the Bush administration to invade six of these countries! Any marches then? No.

In 2011 the then President Obama ordered the suspension of Iraqi visa requests for 6 months. Why didn't left wing Guardian columnist Owen Jones organise a march through the streets of London about that decision? Of course, it's only regarded as sinful/racist/barbaric/outrageous because the latest decision is made by the 'loathsome', bombastic Trump. Obama made his decisions in a much quieter, softer manner.

No protests, as far as I can gather, of Hilary Clinton receiving substantial financial support from Saudi Arabia for her election campaign. Why not?

And back here in Blighty, who has organised a march about our leader of the opposition Jeremy Corbyn's support of those cold blooded killers, the IRA?

And who has organised a march here in London about the woeful, disgusting practices carried out against women in so many parts of the Middle East? Female genital mutilation is about as depraved and abhorrent as it gets and it's still happening here in Britain. But, of course, no marches.

Oughtn't we make efforts to be less hypocritical? 63 million Americans voted for Trump and, in the biggest turnout since the Second World War, 52% of us voted for Brexit. Let's get some perspective on these puerile 'He's not my President'  'Brexit not in my name' comments. Otherwise, I'm going to organise a march of my own, simply as a representation of the silent majority.

Education and the Parent Factor

I was reading the latest complaints emanating from the teachers' unions, this time about the increase in class size numbers. There is no doubt that schools, just like hospitals, are having to deal with successive governments' relaxed attitudes about unfettered immigration, which has pushed many of our public services to breaking point. This stated, I am not convinced that teaching a class of forty is that much more onerous than dealing with one of thirty. There are more books to mark, of course, but in terms of lesson delivery it matters not one jot. It is far too simplistic to say that big is bad and small is good. Small class sizes in themselves do not raise standards in education.

I watched a documentary on BBC 2 last Sunday about educational success in South Korea. Three British pupils spent three days in the Korean system, being taught in classes of over forty. As in most parts of Asia, the standards of teaching and learning in South Korea are way ahead of what we manage here in the UK.

Why? Principally because Korean parents take an active interest in their children's education and are wholly supportive of their local school. This is often in stark contrast to what happens here in the UK, where there is a growing number of parents who show little or no interest in their child's education.

What's more, there is also a substantial tranche who deliberately undermine their child's school's authority. These parents complain publicly about too much homework or too little homework; too much discipline or not enough discipline; they express dissatisfaction with certain rules which they then publicly challenge. Why can't he wear his hair in this style? Why can't she wear her skirt in this manner? etc etc. There are even parents who have challenged their local school in a court of law after having deliberately disobeyed school policy by taking their child away on holiday during term time. More and more parents are chipping away at our schools' authority and doing it publicly.

The result is the pupils follow the parents' example by challenging the rules of the school and not only by ignoring their teachers' instructions but also by being unpleasantly rude and obnoxious in the process.

In Korea we were informed by the BBC 2 documentary that 'the king and the teacher are equal in the eyes of society.' As a result, Korean top graduates are keen to become teachers and are able to inspire the next generation to work hard to achieve their goals. Here in the UK teaching is no longer considered as a viable career option by top graduates. What's more, there is an annual haemorrhage of in-service professionals, as facing a daily barrage of recalcitrant, uninterested pupils takes its toll.

If we are ever to restore the once proud reputation of the British education system, we not to stop faffing around about peripheral matters, such as class size, and address the real issues:-

I say to parents, if you have a real issue of concern about an important school matter, such as your child not being taught properly or being bullied, address this issue, via a private meeting, with a head of year or form teacher. Under no circumstance involve the press. Any negative publicity about the school will damage your child's education. Publicly support the school and its rules on every matter. Even if you think your child has been unfairly treated, do not openly criticize the authority of the school - do it behind closed doors. Take an interest in your child's progress; spend some time asking him or her about homework etc. It doesn't take too much time.

With full parental support we could once again see top graduates attracted to the teaching profession here in the UK. The relation of an inspirational teacher to a pupil comes just below the relation of a parent to a child and our schools might once again be full of inspirational professionals.  What's more, bad teachers will no longer be able to damage children's future prospects.

Make no mistake, parents who undermine the running of our schools have a far more deleterious effect on children's educational progress than any increase in class sizes.

The Latest Historical Abuse Scandal

I have stated time and time again, and I make this point abundantly clear in my soon-to-be-published book 'Presumed Guilty' (Biteback, Jan 10th 2017), there are few things worse to cope with when growing up than being abused by a trusted adult. Some of the stories I heard about when writing my book were difficult to listen to. All of us, as a society, must do all within our gift to keep our children safe from the hands of predatory abusers.

This stated, it will be of little surprise considering the appalling lies from which I had to suffer during 2012-2013 that I have become suspicious about the motives of those who suddenly complain about having been abused many years ago and have said nothing to anybody about the abuse during the interim period. Of course, just because someone has kept his or her counsel for decades does not mean that that person was not abused. But, in view of the latest explosion of complaints of historical abuse within the world of football, we have to be careful we do not believe all complainants without thorough scrutiny. We did precisely this with regard to a number of VIPs/celebrities/teachers in recent years and, as it transpired, after the ruination of many innocent people's lives, most of what was claimed was proven to be nonsense.

The person who recently started the ball rolling about historical abuse in the world of football coaching is a man called Andy Woodward, an ex-footballer himself, who alleges that he was abused when he was a boy by former coach Barry Bennell. It is interesting to note that Woodward is a former policeman who was himself dismissed by Lancashire Constabulary as recently as 4 November 2016 for 12 counts of gross misconduct. What's more, a number of women have made serious allegations of unprofessional conduct against him. One woman has claimed that he raped her, although no charges have been brought. None of this has been mentioned in the mainstream media.

Mr Woodward may well have been abused by Barry Bennell, as he claims, but all I am calling for is caution and proper investigative work when dealing with historical complaints. The fact is Bennell, a football coach who has three times been imprisoned for historical abuse against boys, has admitted his guilt on certain past charges and has been punished. This does not necessarily mean he is guilty of every future complaint that comes his way.

What's more, is Bennell's past guilt a reason to start a national campaign to follow those campaigns which have attracted a host of liars and opportunists over recent years? The m.o. seems to be: Bennell has been found guilty of abuse therefore anyone can make further claims against him (or against any other football coaches), knowing they will be believed. Egged on by the P.I. lawyers, they can then get their hands on the available tens of thousands of pounds compensation.

I am sorry to state that as long as we attach vast quantities of cash to these historical allegations (all claimants encouraged enthusiastically by the P.I. lawyers of course) and as long as there are malicious, greedy opportunists, like the person who started criminal proceedings against me in 2012, then we will never know who is telling the truth.  What we must do is investigate all these new allegations intelligently and as thoroughly as possible, which was palpably missing from the various historical 'operations' of recent years.

Letting Fees & Landlords

I see the Chancellor has banned landlords from charging letting fees. I own a number of properties in London and outside. I am also the Chairman of the Residents' Committee in two blocks of flats and I can tell you the vast majority of landlords have absolutely no regard and little respect for their tenants - preposterously high deposits, charging for the renewal of tenancy agreements and sky high rental payments charged; while at the same time always procrastinating, or downright refusal, when it comes to necessary repairs and refurbishment.

I remember a time when a couple could live in rented accommodation - even here in the capital - and afford to save up for a home of their own at the same time. Not any more. Rents are forbidding and the tenants have no choice other than to pay off the landlord's mortgage and then some! It leads to so much stress.

The landlords bleat that they have to charge inflated rents because they have to pay exaggerated mortgage payments on their properties. My answer to this is: then don't buy a 2nd/3rd/4th property.

The number of households with sky high rents in order to stuff the pockets of landlords is now running at about four and a half million, which has been a massive increase over the past 20 years.
I regularly deal with these grasping, unscrupulous landlords and I find the vast majority utterly selfish/self-serving.

As an example, where I live in Osterley our service charge has just risen to an annual £2,400 payment because we have to have all our rear fire exit stairways refurbished or replaced. My neighbours have consequently had their rent raised by the landlord to £1,400 per month (for a two bedroomed flat in Zone 4) - i.e. they have borne the full brunt of the increase. The landlord himself has avoided any extra charge.

Is this fair? Is it moral? No, on both counts.

Most people just want a place to live. No one seems to care that an increasing number of landlords have effectively got together, aided and abetted by the equally unscrupulous estate agents, to rob desperate tenants of their hard earned cash. And no one does anything about it.

Simon Warr (who charges £600 a month for a one bedroom property, up to £750 for a three bedroomed property). It gives me grateful, reliable, non problematic, friendly tenants, as well as a healthy profit).

Accusations and Anonymity

Being falsely accused of child abuse is catastrophic for the person targeted. I had my life as I knew it destroyed by an unadulterated liar who just happened to be a pupil in a school where I briefly taught over 30 years ago. His despicable allegations were the first thing I thought about when I woke up in the morning and the last thing on my mind at night before I, eventually, fell asleep (when I was able to do so). The whole experience was tortuous.

I spent 672 days on bail, in the glare of maximum publicity, during which time I had to suffer disgusting insults in the street and from the untutored internet mob, who regard any sexual abuse allegations as proof of guilt. During this time my name and photograph were repeatedly published in the press and on the internet. After a nigh on two-year nightmare, my accuser's allegations were dismissed by a jury within a half an hour and he was allowed to crawl back with his lies whence he came, cloaked in anonymity.

Two years on, he has still not been called to justice while I, the innocent party, am inextricably manacled to his disgraceful lies via the search engines and will be until the day I die. And some people think this publicity is a price worth paying to give confidence to 'survivors' to come forward.

Many who are the target of a child abuse allegation commit suicide under the strain of public humiliation. This is precisely what happened to a teacher from the same school where I was teaching who was arrested months before me. He was never tried in a court of law but he was unable to deal with the public scandal of being charged with child abuse. I certainly felt suicidal on occasions during my time on bail, as my family name was repeatedly dragged through the mud. And some people think this is a price worth paying to give confidence to 'survivors' to come forward.

It is almost impossible to convey the deep feelings of humiliation and depression you feel when reading press reports of what you are alleged to have done. One national newspaper produced a comprehensive report of my being charged with historical child abuse but failed to mention the case at all when I was cleared. The reason is, of course, scandals involving teachers and sex abuse and children sell thousands of extra copies, while a story about a teacher being cleared is lame by comparison. But there are those who accept this as an unfortunate casualty of their determination to have all accused's names publicised far and wide in order to give confidence to those who have, or claim to have, been abused to come forward.

Surely in the febrile atmosphere which permeates this country following Savile's death, most people are aware they will be listened to sympathetically if they make a complaint. After all, the previous Director of Public Prosecutions, Kier Starmer, announced publicly that all 'victims (sic) will be believed'. Why, then, is it necessary to publicise the names of those accused? That person's name will eventually come out when he or she has been found guilty in a court of law. Are we prepared to ruin innocent people's lives to give succour to all complainants? What about the rights of innocent people like me? Do the 'survivor groups' care about our unjust treatment? Or is this a price worth paying in the grand scheme of things?

I have heard it said that the number of false allegations pales into insignificance when compared to real abuse cases. How do we know this when the police rarely prosecute false complainants? After all, the opportunist who accused me has never been brought to justice. Of course he hasn't because he was supported and even encouraged by the police throughout what passed as their 'investigation' of my case. It would compromise their own position now to turn against him. And I can't believe my case is an exception.

I had a mountain to climb: it was I on my own versus the generous resources of the State, and that struggle was exacerbated ten fold by the repeated publication of my name on television, radio, the net and in the press. Is this just unfortunate collateral damage of the publication of suspects' names?

The police are all for the immediate disclosure of a suspect's name because they can then set about their trawling for more complainants. They realise that, where child sex abuse is concerned, no proof will be required to secure a conviction if they can encourage others to come forward to tell a similar story. They are quite correct in thinking that five or six unsatisfactory allegations often add up to one satisfactory whole. What's more, these allegations are treated as though they are spontaneous but, of course, they are usually anything but. Juries are then left to separate those who are telling the truth from those despicable opportunists who want to get their dishonest hands on a wad of cash and even enjoy a bit of attention to boot.

These liars think that if a suspect has been accused by somebody else, they themselves are on pretty safe ground making their own allegation. They'll keep their anonymity if the accused is exonerated and might even cash in with press interviews if the suspect is found guilty. There's nothing to lose and a lot to gain.

No one accused of sexual abuse, which carries with it such a stigma in our society, should have his or her name made public until that person is at least charged with an offence, although there are those (me included) who feel someone should keep anonymity until a guilty verdict is announced in a court.

Simon Warr, author of 'Presumed Guilty', published by Biteback on January 10th 2017.

Why Homework Works

I have just read the story of the Philip Morant secondary school in Colchester, which has decided no longer to set homework. It is making a grave error.

I was a teacher for over thirty years and I used homework as a vital component in educating my pupils. A few points about the importance of homework:-

Why do pupils go to school? To learn, I hear you say. Only to a degree (excuse the pun). They go principally to study. Even bright children will pick up less than 50 percent of what they're taught first time around. The learning is done after class (i.e. homework) and, if this happens, that 50 percent becomes 90 percent.

For an hour's lesson, no more than 15 minutes' learning time is required. If that 15 minutes doesn't take place, the child will forget about 85 percent of the lesson within a week. When year 11 pupils say they are revising for an exam, what they're usually doing is re-studying.

I have ALWAYS told my classes there are three steps to success:-
STUDY(1 hour) - LEARN (15 mins) - REVISE (5 mins).  Simple as this.

You cannot learn what you haven't studied and you can't revise what you haven't learned.
This is why homework is imperative. If the teacher gives the impression he or she does not consider homework as relevant to the school process, then the pupils will suffer the consequences.

Uniform Matters

I have been a guest contributor on various radio programmes this week discussing the puerile protests by parents at Hartsdown Academy in Kent because their offspring have been sent home by the new Head teacher, Matthew Tate, for wearing incorrect school uniform. These complaining fools are unable to recognise that nothing does more to undermine the effective running of a school than this sort of selfish, misguided behaviour.

There are plenty of things parents are entitled to complain about on behalf of their children, such as persistent bullying/poor teaching/being in the wrong set for a particular subject. However, any complaints parents do have must be proffered behind closed doors with the Head in a constructive, mature manner.

As far as wearing a smart uniform is concerned, because the teaching and learning process is a formal one, then what the pupils wear should reflect this. But even if the wearing of a particular uniform was deemed by many to be surplus to requirements, if the pupils know what the rules of the school are, they should abide by them; it is the slippery slope to allow pupils and parents to pick and choose which rules they agree with.

I believe smart attire at school links in with discipline, respectful behaviour and good manners. This in turn is inextricably linked with feelings of security, contentment and academic success. A school uniform crosses all social divides and this is appropriate in a school environment which is one of equal opportunities.

But regardless of any of the reasons for and against wearing a specific school uniform, I wish these parents could start acting responsibly and take a united stance with the school's position. If they cannot see that it is their own children who will pay the price of the discord resulting from these pathetic, misguided public protests, then they need to go back to school themselves.