One of the many things about Katharine Birbalsingh which doesn't just make her a bad teacher, but makes her an actual danger to children, is that she writes kids off from the start, based on who their parents are, or their uniqueness and abilities etc. 1/
I have known teachers like her when I was growing up. They are ableist, dismissive and harmful. They break kids. They leave serious mental scars and they destroy lives. They shouldn't be allowed within a 100 miles of a classroom. 2/
They are the teachers who tell a child that they won't amount to anything because that child doesn't fit the weird little model that they have created in their own minds. They are the teacher who puts a child off reading because they tell them they are stupid. 3/
I am autistic. I didn't know that when I was at school. I had teachers like this. Teachers who told me that the best I could hope for was nothing. Teachers who told me I could never be academic, because I didn't learn the way they expected. 4/
Teachers who after my mum died dismissed and actually degraded me in front of the whole class, because what could I do with a drunkard father and no mother. I was the example of what you wanted to avoid being like. 5/
I trained as an SEN teacher. I got higher level qualifications in international relations, economics, marketing and law. I got a good job helping people and I built a life I love. Not "because" of those teachers, but despite them. Because those teachers left scars. 6/
Teachers like Birbalsingh should have been banned from schools long ago. Children aren't cannon fodder in some bullshit "war on woke". They need support, not to be denigrated for who they or their parents are. Otherwise how many more kids will be damaged by teachers like this? 7/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Thread; A few things have been bubbling through my head while scrolling through Twitter recently about community, identity, engagement and being #ActuallyAutistic on this site. Bear with me as this may be a bit disjointed. 1/
Recently I have seen friends be attacked for not following a particular line. I was attacked because others don't like someone I am friends with and I have seen people worry that they don't fit in, because they don't have all the same traits as someone else. 2/
I count myself as lucky. I have a handful of wonderful friends offline who I can go months without talking to, and then just pick up again as if we spoke every day. I find constant communication with people quite hard though. 3/
Promised my wife lobster for her birthday, and yeah... Why?
Okay, starting with the butter, because you know...not as worrying if I mess it up. Garlic, chilli, lemon, parsley and butter, even I can mix those together. Well, you'd hope.
Okay, going in. "Break the spine and crack the ribs". This is a little too much like my grandfather's advise for dealing with bullies. Didn't stand a chance then, probably not going to fair much better now.
Something to say about the age assessment debate yesterday in the @UKHouseofLords. Lord Hodgson complained that Baroness Bennett disregarded "evidence" from Migration Watch, an easy thing to do based on Migration Watch's track record. 1/
More importantly is how both he and Baroness Neville-Rolfe disregarded evidence from medical experts, social workers, child centred NGO's etc. Implementing the current proposals for age assessments with a "review" after a year, as they suggest, would place children at risk. 2/
In the space of that year how many children will be incorrectly classified as adults, something which when it happens is incredibly hard to appeal, and will become harder under proposals in the Judicial Review Bill. 3/
"It isn't about changing the refugee convention. It is about amending it" That is akin to someone being charged with breaking and entering claiming they were just "interpreting the law". The UK's #BordersBill clearly and unambiguously violates international law.
"interpreting" not "amending"
For many people changing the wording from "reasonable likelihood" to "balance of probability" may sound like semantics, but in reality makes it far more difficult for those fleeing persecution to be granted asylum by the nature of the higher burden of proof which will be required
Offshore detention doesn't "deter" asylum seekers. It does put them at risk and undermine the UK's obligations to international law. The mental and physical toll which it places on asylum seekers leaves lasting damage, as well as costing lives. #BordersBill
The "Australian model", and evidence supplied by the Australian High Commission, is not supported by the evidence seen on the ground. Offshoring is ineffective, costly and inhumane. More than all this though, it costs lives. kaldorcentre.unsw.edu.au/publication/po…
"Offshoring" asylum seekers would result in an effective denial of rights and would leave asylum seekers in limbo. More than that though, offshoring has been shown by its nature is not "temporary". It is a denial of status and an abhorrent attack against refugees.
We really need mainstream media outlets publishing easily accessible, non-political, pieces about refugees to help ensure public are properly informed and harmful misinformation is debunked, before we see a re-run of what happened on the Belarusian/Polish border for starters. 1/
Just in relation to situation with Ukraine, we're already seeing hyperbolic and misleading information, as shown above. In a more general sense so, misleading information and language has become so normalised that even those who ostensibly feel for refugees think it is genuine 2/
Even something as innocuous as refering to asylum seekers as "migrants", technically correct, but more importantly has the underlying effect of ignoring the very specific rights which refugees are granted and the difference between asylum and immigration systems. 3/