Why Real Education Matters

I was recently approached by the media to offer my thoughts as to why the provision of school education here in the UK is no longer the envy of the world. In fact, as a nation, we have slid down the international league tables in both literacy and numeracy, both to an alarming degree.

In a nutshell, I would state that the principal reason is, in our efforts to avoid reprimanding children at all costs and to try 'to get alongside them' (I know, ghastly phrase, but so often used by management), teachers' authority has severely diminished. Many British pupils seem to have adopted an inflated sense of their own importance and refuse to respect the paid professionals employed to educate them until they feel they are prepared to do so.

In British society teachers are viewed at a pretty low level in terms of the top professions and pupils are aware of this. An ever increasing number of parents, too, encourage their offspring not to accept what they are told to do at school and are quick to complain if their son or daughter is punished. In other words, they often undermine the running of the school.

Let's consider for a moment two countries in the world who annually come top of the international league for educational success - South Korea and Finland. In the way they provide education for their children you couldn't get two countries farther apart. In the case of South Korea, pupils are put under unrelenting pressure with long school days, a lot of homework and regular testing from an early age. In Finland, children don't start school until they reach the age of seven, they rarely do homework until their teenage years and don't have to sit a public exam until they reach sixteen.

But what is common to both countries is practically all children believe in the system and share a deep respect for their teachers and their academic accomplishments. Teachers are viewed as highly as doctors in both societies and the teaching profession attracts applications from the top ten per cent of graduates. In both countries the pupils are convinced that doing as they are instructed by the paid professionals will ultimately bring them success, happiness and fulfillment. They are taught how to work wisely and how to persist in the face of possible failure. Both Korean and Finnish parents support the running of their local school at every level.

In both these countries there is almost total literacy and numeracy among school leavers and the difference between the weakest and strongest is the smallest in the world. What's more, both countries spend far less money on each child's education than that spent here in the UK.

The lesson is clear but, of course, will be ignored here in the UK for generations to come - teachers' authority must be restored to how it was in the 1960s and '70s. I am not suggesting we return to the days of 'children should be seen and not heard' but as long as we persist with this notion that the pupils have every right to challenge the teachers' authority whenever they please; as long as we refuse to punish those unruly pupils who are ruining the chances of others in the class from learning; as long as teachers are treated as lackeys in our society, thus putting off top graduates from a career in teaching, and as long as parents refuse to offer their unalloyed support for the running of their local school, then the gap between educational provision here in the UK and that in countries such as South Korea and Finland will continue to widen.

Trial By Jury - Or By Prejudice?

For many, trial by jury has long been the most important part of our judicial system. Those accused of a criminal offence, it is argued, have a right to be tried by 12 of their peers, who are selected at random from the community. But, as the decades have passed, I have become increasingly convinced that the jury system has become anachronistic and is now fraught with problems.

My doubts started when I, myself, sat in a cage in a crown court in 2014 and a liar who had accused me of having touched him inappropriately 30 years earlier was allowed to give his 'evidence' from behind a screen. Those 12 jury members, most entering a court for the very first time, would not be human if they didn't feel some bias against me in my cage, and empathy towards the 'vulnerable' liar, being protected from my view. Thus, we have a natural bias against the defendant to overcome from the start.

When it comes to alleged crimes perpetrated against children, ordinary folk are programmed to feel disgusted and will be most reluctant to acquit if they feel there is even a smidgen of doubt that the accused may be guilty. Everyone knows that 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt' is unlikely to come into many jurors' decision making, but rather it is a case of  'are the chances this person might well be guilty?'

Recently, I sat through a criminal case in a crown court in which a man was on trial for alleged historical abuse perpetrated against three young women in the 1970s. I watched the jury eagerly as the evidence was presented and I was shocked that only one of the twelve was bothering to take any notes at all. If I'd been on that jury, I would have been unable to come to an informed decision back in the retiring room based solely on memory. I wouldn't have been surprised to learn that some of them might well have been bored.

And how can the system prevent certain jury members from making decisions based on their in-built prejudices? What was it that juror Kasim Davey posted on Facebook after a trial at which he had been adjudicating....'Woooow, I wasn't expecting to be in a jury deciding a paedophile's fate. I've always wanted to fuck up a paedo.'

Can we really be sure that all jurors will start listening to the evidence being presented to them completely open-minded about the defendant sitting in his or her cage? It is foolish to assume so. Is the present system an expensive and dangerous way of placing incredibly important decisions in the hands of 12 ordinary citizens, some of whom might well not understand the complexities of the case?

I do concede that judges can also be biased against certain tranches of the population but if we had a system in the crown court similar to that at a magistrates' court, i.e. three trained judges prevailing, I think it would be likely we would have fewer miscarriages of justice, particularly where historical allegations are concerned, as these usually are based on one person's word against another. Three judges would also be wary of the police's m.o. of trawling for complainants when the initial complaint has no evidence to support it... quantity replacing quality 'evidence', as is often the case nowadays.

I know a professional, hitherto distinguished, man who was recently sent down on the allegation of an ex-con. The jury was unaware the complainant's criminal history and that he was facing another jail sentence as he gave his 'evidence'. The defendant was subsequently found guilty based on prejudice rather than any actual evidence. Had three highly trained, informed judges been in charge of proceedings (there is a good reason why judges have to undergo such rigorous training), they would have been better equipped to come to the correct decision and, as according to our innocent until proven guilty system, this person would have been rightly acquitted.

I dread to think the number of innocent people serving time in jail - the national figure doesn't bear thinking about. I can state without hesitation that, with the growth of social media, if anyone thinks that the long established rule of jurors not checking out the background to defendants (to avoid bias thinking) still exists, he or she is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Police Bail: 28 Days Later

Curbs have now been introduced on the police current practice of leaving potentially innocent people in legal limbo for months on end, in some cases years. In my recently published book Presumed Guilty, I described the present system surrounding the use of bail by the state as 'police officer justice'. I had to endure 9 months on pre-charge bail and then a further 13 months after I was charged, as the police scoured the country for 'evidence'. Meanwhile, I was convinced this earth was another planet's hell.

While on bail the suspect lives his or her life under a cloud of suspicion and a number of arbitrary restrictions are placed on that person - movement/removal of passport/computer/phone/diaries/personal correspondence/suspended from job (in my case this involved suspended from the home and community where I had spent 30 years)/in some cases (not my own) even separation from one's own children.

There is now a 28 day limit on pre-charge bail. In my book I called for the limit to be 2 months because, with the police force and its support teams currently so stretched, we don't want to make the task of investigation even longer, as officers waste valuable time sitting around in court houses every few weeks.

The Magna Carta states: 'justice delayed is justice denied' but nevertheless some of the appalling cases of this 'police officer justice' m.o. led to Cliff Richard being bailed for 672 days (precisely the number I was bailed for) and Paul Gambaccini for a year, yet neither was charged.

Anyone who has spent even a week on bail will tell you the effect it has on your life is exacting. The longer the process continues, the more one feels the strain. It is nothing short of mental cruelty.

I was discussing this on the Jeremy Vine Show on Radio 2 on Monday and Jeremy asked what was the impetus for this new law being introduced. The answer is the printed press - not the television or radio but three newspapers: the Mail, the Telegraph and the Times. These journals are despised by the liberal establishment because the latter generally don't care a fig for individuals like me because I don't tick any of the minority boxes.

The left wing press concern themselves only with 'movements' and 'groups', while the right wing papers treat each case on the actual evidence. I would like to take this opportunity to thank, among others, Libby Purves and Daniel Finklestein, Richard Littlejohn, Jane Moore and Janet Street Porter - all those print press journalists who will not be cowed by political correctness but will express their views without fear or favour.

I wish the police would invite them to address their officers to explain why this is so important.

Liz Truss & Video Evidence

'We import two thirds of our cheese - MASSIVE PAUSE - that is a disgrace'. Who will ever forget the childlike self-unawareness of Liz Truss' speech to the Tory Party conference last year? Many found her speech performance that day bordering on excruciatingly embarrassing. Well, this individual is now the Justice Secretary. I know, it's hard to believe. But it just goes to show that these days anyone with a bit of luck can reach the dizzy heights of a seat in the Cabinet.

As Justice Secretary, Ms Truss' latest initiative is much more serious than dealing with cheese imports. She has decided that, from September, those making rape allegations are to be spared the ordeal of a cross examination in a court of law. Complainants will give their evidence via a pre-trial recording, which will then be played to the jury. This m.o. has been tested already in cases where children have to give evidence of alleged sexual abuse.

Ms Truss and her advisers believe that if such an initiative is extended to adult rape complainants, this will give them more confidence to report their ordeal. Ms Truss believes that we have made giant strides forward when it comes to dealing with sex abuse complainants, as cases of alleged sex offences have multiplied exponentially during recent years. Indeed, they've doubled in England and Wales within the past four years.

And, in case anyone is worried about liars coming forward, we are also told that false allegations of rape make up just 2-3% of all allegations.

If I may pick up on this last point for a moment. How on earth can anyone know the true percentage of false allegations when the police and CPS rarely, if ever, prosecute those complainants who they have a good idea might well have been spouting forth a pack of lies?

Take my own case, for example: it didn't involve rape, just an allegation of inappropriate touching over 30 years ago. Either way, the two liars who accused me were shown to be exactly that - liars. They managed to ruin my career and to push me to the cusp of suicide. When their lies were exposed for what they were, they slunk back whence they came. They were neither investigated nor prosecuted. When I subsequently asked for at least an apology from them, the Chief Investigative Officer's response was, 'That's not going to happen.' And, you won't be surprised, that's what's happened - precisely nothing.

So you'll excuse me if I dismiss that 2-3% statistic as meaningless. Knowing first hand how cases of alleged sex abuse are handled in this country, I'm surprised the percentage reaches two.

We all want the same thing - rapists to be brought to justice. However, we must be aware, with compensation pay-outs up to six figure sums, the easier we make it for genuine victims, at the same time the easier we make it for the opportunists and downright malicious liars as well.

If this latest initiative means more rapists are brought to justice, then that in itself is a very positive step forward. However, I know at first hand that there are those who will do practically anything to get their filthy, greedy hands on a compensation pay-out, while others simply take delight in seeing someone else's life, career and reputation trashed.

Will any of this have occurred to Ms Truss? I doubt it. I just hope intelligence plays as big a part in Ms Truss' reforms as emotion.

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.