Are Trojan Horses only a problem in respect of Islam?

rogertitcombe's picture
 27
This essay in the Guardian Teacher Network of 8 November raises fundamental issues about the role of faith schools in the education system.

It shows that allowing religious faith leaders of any complexion to run state funded schools is likely to lead to strife and injustice to the vast majority of parents who put educational issues ahead of faith issues.
Share on Twitter

Comments

rogertitcombe's picture
Sun, 16/11/2014 - 10:31

OK, it seems that that no-one so far wants to go where this article is leading, so here are some quotes from the anonymous school governor author.

"Change started with us governors. It’s no longer sufficient for foundation governors – who form a majority on the governing body – to promote the 'Christian ethos' of the school. Now, you have to be a regular church-goer, at the right church, with a vicar to vouch for you. While those of us who don’t fall into that category can brush off the implied insult about all the hard work we’ve already done, we aren’t happy that, when our four year term comes to an end, people who might care less about the school and more about how it fits with the church could take our place.

We’ve been told that the school should actively promote Christianity not in the casual way we’ve always managed it, but more directly, overtly, and it feels with a hint of evangelism. This, they tell us, is now more important than anything else. When I heard this last part, I assumed there must be a mistake.

[however] The message was repeated loud and clear and enough times to convince the most ardent denier. The word of the Lord is more important than Pythagoras and Shakespeare and the rest of the heathens. Precisely how we’re to implement this remains vague. But it’s concerning – we’ve always put the 'school' bit first, and anything less feels like a betrayal of the purpose of education."

Surely allowing (requiring?) the clergy to vet prospective governors is a serious issue. Weren't attempts to manipulate/control the governing bodies of schools in order further faith objectives an issue in the Birmingham schools?

If this is to be the approach with regard to the appointment of governors, what about the appointment of teachers? Will these have to be vetted in relation to doctrinal compliance? Many of us argue that there should be no religious discrimination in the appointment of teachers in any school.

The author of the argument argues that it was not Islam that was the issue in the Birmingham schools, but a minority conservative interpretation of Islam.

I am not sure this is true. The Birmingham schools at least appeared to giving their parents what they wanted.

This is would certainly not be the case in C of E schools. Many surveys show that the great majority of parents put religious considerations in a firm second place in their choice of such schools, if it is even a consideration at all.

Perhaps the principle of religious control of schools really is the issue and it has not been in the past only because of the liberal, educationally focussed policies of the C of E in the past.

Janet Downs's picture
Sun, 16/11/2014 - 11:20

Secret Governor's comments caused a long debate on Schools Improvement net. The first comment said:

'Big deal. Christian school is Christian. We are supposed to put Christ first, as Christians'.

To which I replied (writing as Janet2):

'Does putting Christ first mean putting non-Christians second? Does it mean elbowing out people who don't go to church? I don't think so.'

To cut a long thread short, I ended with this:

'You're right that the state religion of the UK is Christianity (Anglicanism, actually).

But that doesn't mean the UK is a theocracy where civil law is governed by religious law (eg sharia in Muslim countries).

A High Court ruling in 2011 said:

"We live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy... Our society is now pluralistic and largely secular. We sit as secular judges serving a multi-cultural community of many faiths."

The full ruling is here.'




Janet Downs's picture
Sun, 16/11/2014 - 11:27

Roger - the governors who it's claimed are elbowing out a governor who doesn't go to church etc and who wish to promote Christianity more robustly than the school already does should pay heed to the guidance governing RE in schools. This is different according to the type of school:

LA maintained schools have to teach RE according to the locally agreed syllabus.


If the school where Secret Governor is on the governing body is a Foundation school or a Voluntary Controlled faith school then the school must follow the locally agreed RE syllabus BUT it must make provision for parents who want their child educated in the religion named on the trust deed or the school's designated religion if it's not named on the trust deed to receive two periods of such RE a week unless special circumstances make it unreasonable to do so.


It is only Voluntary aided schools which teach RE 'determined by the governors and in accordance with the provisions of the trust deed relating to the school'

In addition, all academies are required to teach RE. This should be

(a) in line with the locally agreed syllabus (if non-faith),

(b) conform to the 'denominational syllabus' if the academy has a religious character (eg Muslim, CofE, RC),

(c) either of the above if the academy is 'non-denominational' (ie those that describe themselves as Christian) depending on what the sponsor wants.

The DfE rules re RE are here.


Andy V's picture
Sun, 16/11/2014 - 13:41

Janet, One modest point of clarification is I may. maintained schools must comply with the national curriculum rubric that states:

"2.1 Every state-funded school must offer a curriculum which is balanced and broadly
based1 and which:

promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society, and
prepares pupils at the school for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life.


2.3 All state schools are also required to make provision for a daily act of collective
worship and must teach religious education to pupils at every key stage and sex and
relationship education to pupils in secondary education."

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil...

To comply with this maintained schools may follow the SACRE (Locally Agreed Syllabus) or the non-statutory RE curriculum (issued by the last government and can be found in the DFE archives section).

With regard to your statement:

"the governors who it’s claimed are elbowing out a governor who doesn’t go to church etc and who wish to promote Christianity more robustly than the school already does should pay heed to the guidance governing RE in schools. This is different according to the type of school"

It is my perception that what the school (and presumably diocese) is trying to do is ensure that the criteria for joining/serving on the governing body reflects the faith basis of the school. This is not the same as changing the teaching of subjects through RE or even RE as a discrete subject, which as you rightly highlight is framed by the Anglican viewpoint and mediated through the Diocesan Education department.

Andy V's picture
Sun, 16/11/2014 - 13:24

The headline comments of this thread reveal a heavy bias of the author against faith based schools, which does not augur well for any balanced debate/discussion of the topic:

"It shows that allowing religious faith leaders of any complexion to run state funded schools is likely to lead to strife and injustice to the vast majority of parents who put educational issues ahead of faith issues"

For example, the above quote is devoid of any recognition that the school involved is faith based and as such requires acknowledgement that parents send their children there in full knowledge of the faith nature of the school and may well accept that the education will be delivered within an overarching ethos of Anglicanism (High, Middle or Low church nuance).

The secret governor's position is flawed in that there is no 'Trojan Horse' style element to this al a Birmingham and elsewhere with attempted Muslim take overs. The case cited in the article relates exclusively to the composition of the governing body and does not even hint at:

1. Inappropriate external speakers espousing extremist/radical views contrary to British Values
2. Removing art/music/drama from the curriculum

A key difference that jars with the comparison is that the Trojan schools were all state schools that governors were trying to surreptitiously and underhandedly change to Muslim schools.

It would be helpful to desist from opening debates that are biased to the point of ignoring balance, ignoring context and are prejudged before any one can contribute. It would also be of benefit if the author of the thread could compare like with like rather than Trojan Horse - attempted imposition of faith status on a non-denominational state school - with an established faith school reviewing the criteria for its governance.

rogertitcombe's picture
Sun, 16/11/2014 - 14:34

Andy - As you and other readers of my posts well know, I am a supporter of the position of the National Secular Society in relation to faith based schools.

www.secularism.org.uk

You are not and we are not going to be able to bridge the gap. I respect your point of view, but disagree with it. Your judgement of balance would not be the same as mine. I drew attention to the article by the The Secret Governor to draw attention to the issues. I happen to think he/she raises important points, as does Janet in her response to it.

The reason for my post was to generate what I regard to be a necessary debate. I realise that plenty of people will disagree with me in my view that proselytising has no place in the national education system of our secular state. The question of whether our state is secular or not has been settled by many decisions of high court judges in addition to the one that Janet draws attention to.

Janet Downs's picture
Mon, 17/11/2014 - 09:54

John Kershaw in his report on the B'Ham schools listed the 5 elements said to form part of the Trojan Horse infiltration. One was:

'Install a governor to drip feed ideals for an Islamic School'.

This could equally apply to a governors drip feeding 'ideals' for a Christian (or, indeed, any other faith) School.

Some TJ schools reported that governors who didn't support these 'ideals' were elbowed out.

You're right, however, we don't know the context of the Guardian article. And it would depend on the status of the school. Religious teaching in schools largely appears in RE, hence my comment above about how different types of school approach this. Of course, what are termed 'religious values': treating people as you would like to be treated, showing compassion and tolerance (actually humanitarian values) can be taught through example which should permeate whole school life.

But what we have here appears to be an attempt to proselytise.

The 5 TJ elements are in paragraph 16 of the Kershaw report here.

Andy V's picture
Mon, 17/11/2014 - 10:52

Janet, You appear to be overlooking a crucial difference in that John Kershaw was referring to state school of no faith basis (non-denominational) effectively being underhandedly and illegally turned in faith-based schools. The school the SG is referring to is and always has been a faith based school. It was established as a CoE school from its inception. The school is a Christian school and should therefore be delivering the national curriculum in conjunction with exercising a Christian ethos and as such it is hardly surprising that Christian attitudes are a heartbeat of the school.

I did not understand the SG's article as saying that governors were being "elbowed" out. I did note that they referred to the end of the 4 year tenure as a governor and the impact as to whether they (and possibly others) would be able to stand for a second term.

The SG clearly does not accurately understand the Birmingham scenario and this is evidenced in the statement, "Islam wasn’t called into question during the Trojan horse scandal in Birmingham’s schools – the problem was the people seeking to impose their vision of it." These schools were and still are non-denominational and are not therefore Islamic faith schools but the Trojan Horse analogy arose because of the method used to try and subvert them(including diminishing the curriculum and use of radical speakers). For me, and having read and re-read SG's article, there is simply no connection/link/comparison to be had.

What I do acknowledge is a sense of frustration (even angst or bitterness) from the SG at the prospect of having to stop being a governor at the school when the 4 year term ends.

Janet Downs's picture
Mon, 17/11/2014 - 11:29

Andy - you're right that the TJ schools were non-denominational while Secret Governor is at a CoE school. You would, expect, therefore for the CoE school to have a Christian bias. What we don't know is whether it's Voluntary Controlled or Voluntary Aided.

CoE VC schools don't control their admissions - they accept the children the LA sends to them. And CoE VC schools adhere to the locally-agreed RE syllabus. It would be worrying if any governors at a CoE VC school started lobbying for, say, a faith-based admission (they wouldn't succeed if it's VC) or discriminated against non CoE applicants for teaching jobs.

I know anecdotes aren't reliable and are based on a narrow evidence base, but my experience of CoE VC schools is that they're CoE 'lite'. They operate within an inclusive atmosphere and base their ethos on humanitarian values (which may be wrapped up as Christian). The children troop up to the local church once a term and the vicar pops in occasionally to lead an assembly but it's a long way from proselytising.

Andy V's picture
Mon, 17/11/2014 - 11:42

Janet - You say, "You would, expect, therefore for the CoE school to have a Christian bias" and I sense a personal position coming through in the choice of "bias" which might be more accurately portrayed as 'ethos'. It is also possible to discern an additional personal strand emerging when you say, "base their ethos on humanitarian values (which may be wrapped up as Christian)", which set against the context of the school might be more accurately conveyed as 'Christian ethos reflecting humanitarian values'.

The rest of what you say is speculative and could be perceived as building a case without an appropriate evidence base to corroborate it.

Whether any of use agree or disagree with state funded state schools does not mean any of us should bring our personal baggage to bear in attempting to create a case where no appropriate evidence exists.

So for me this particular thread is contrived prejudged non-starter underpinned by trying to compare apples with tomatoes.

Andy V's picture
Sun, 16/11/2014 - 14:47

The issue I raise is not about agreement or disagreement. Rather it is about starting prejudged discussion and attempting to compare apples with tomatoes. Both positions ill befit a Scientist whose skills are in logical and evidence, neither of which is evident in this piece.

It is illogical and untenable to use a faith based school scenario to bang the big base secular drum that "the vast majority of parents who put educational issues ahead of faith issues."

What you are in effect doing is using an inappropriate exemplar as part of a straw man argument. This has everything to do you beating your secular chest and nothing to with opening a debate focused on the acceptability and/or benefice of faith based schools within the state sector. This goes some way to revealing why the entirely inappropriate comparison is attempted between non-denominational states schools being effectively illegally subverted to a faith basis and an established CoE school, which from its conception was faith based. In this way you undermine yourself, your argument and credibility. :-(

rogertitcombe's picture
Sun, 16/11/2014 - 15:47

Andy - C of E schools are not seen as primarily religious schools by most of their parents and certainly also some of their present governors as the Secret Governor points out. By all means allow Diocesan authorities to appoint school governors, as LAs appoint governors to schools. However there are many constituencies that appoint governors to state funded schools, Parents are one such. Not many C of E schools have a majority of practising Anglicans as parents, at least not after they have gained admission for their children, therefore they ought to be allowed to elect who they like as parent governors. The same goes for staff governors. My understanding is that teachers at C of E schools do not have to undergo doctrinal interrogations. Remember that there are many varieties of Christians. Earlier today I saw a BBC TV News item stating that 'Songs of Praise' is to be opened up to other Christian sects.

The governors of public service institutions of all types are generally understood to have a representational role in relation to their constituents. The 'executive' is not normally allowed to vet governors. It is just wrong and dangerous.

It is important to note that the Secret Governor does not object to the Church running the school or to religious education, prayers etc. The Objection is to faith related issues being put before all else in the school.

With regard to the Birmingham schools, the first step in the strategy of imposed proselytising was to pack the governing bodies with like-minded governors. All the other undesirable consequences followed from this, which is presumably what the Secret Governor fears.

You talk about the need for balance. The Secret Governor appears to be eminently balanced and tolerant in his/her view. The Diocesan authority does not.

Andy V's picture
Sun, 16/11/2014 - 16:25

Ah ha, we now move from the particular school about which nothing is known because it is not named to the broad-brush and generalised personal perception put forward as fact e.g "C of E schools are not seen as primarily religious schools by most of their parents". Your corroborated evidence for this is what?

The personal attack aspect of your thread comes to fore in your choice of phraseology, "My understanding is that teachers at C of E schools do not have to undergo doctrinal interrogations." Where and how on earth the terminology "doctrinal interrogations" come from I cannot begin to discern - other than your intensely polemical standpoint.

The linkage between a BBC programme and a CoE school's approach to appointing governors is equally beyond me and suggests someone clutching at straws in the breeze to build a haystack. Comparing/linking entertainment media presenting an overtly and long established piece of religious programming with the governance of a CoE school is bordering on being laughable.

You state that the SG says their "... Objection is to faith related issues being put before all else in the school" but neither he nor therefore you are able to cite what was actually said or produce hard evidence of any other kind to support the assertion. Out another you have taken the SG's word as being the gospel truth and blindly followed it. Where is the rigour that Science would bring to bear on requiring the evidence before promulgating and perpetuating unsubstantiated opinion? You compound this in your closing comments "The Secret Governor appears to be eminently balanced and tolerant in his/her view. The Diocesan authority does not", which amplify your prejudgement at the top of the thread. Because the SG's perception of the situation neatly matches your personal secularist viewpoint you accept it a being truthful and an accurate reflection of a situation about which neither you nor I have any actual knowledge.

In my estimation it is a huge sadness that someone of your obvious intellect and experience is attempting to use this anonymously authored article about an anonymous CoE school to create a secularist cause cé•lè•bre on LSN.

rogertitcombe's picture
Sun, 16/11/2014 - 17:10

Andy - I am doing no such thing. I am just trying to make some points that I think are valid and you disagree with. Certainly the Secret Governor might be making it all up, as might anybody that posts anonymously including here on LSN.


Andy V's picture
Sun, 16/11/2014 - 17:29

The SG could be doing any one of several things but I have not made any attempt to place any interpretation on the content of the article. Indeed, I couched it in terms of the author's perception, which does not automatically imply or confer accuracy between what has actually happened and how the SG receives or perceives it.


Andy V's picture
Sun, 16/11/2014 - 17:16

I am at a loss as to how you say, "I am just trying to make some points that I think are valid and you disagree with". I have neither agreed nor disagreed with anything. What I have done is holdout for evidence to support claims being put forward. You are - not for the first time on our engagements on LSN - putting words onto my statements that don't exist.


Janet Downs's picture
Mon, 17/11/2014 - 12:09

Andy - you're reading too much into my use of the word 'bias'. I meant it in the sense of 'leaning toward' rather than narrowly submitting. I accept, however, ethos would have been a better word to use.

I made it clear my last paragraph was anecdotal. I have no evidence to suggest my experience of CoE VC schools is universally accurate. That was implied when I pointed out that my experience (which you described as 'personal baggage') was 'based on a narrow evidence base'. In other words, I was pointing out the anecdote was unreliable as evidence.

The values often described as Christian values (love, tolerance, charity etc) are not confined to Christianity (or indeed any other religion). They are human values not dependent on religion. I feel (note, I'm speaking personally here) that religions sometimes try to claim the high moral ground by saying only their religion speaks of love, tolerance, charity etc when it's quite possible to show these qualities without sharing the faith making that claim. And, of course, we see plenty of evidence of lack of these qualities in religions (and non faith groups as well).

Shaun Whitfield's picture
Mon, 17/11/2014 - 12:27

Andy said: 'Janet, You appear to be overlooking a crucial difference in that John Kershaw was referring to state school of no faith basis (non-denominational) effectively being underhandedly and illegally turned in faith-based schools.'

But the National Secular Society's research has found undesirable christian infiltration in non-denominational schools, exploiting the requirement for them to provide collective worship and religious education. See: http://www.secularism.org.uk/uploads/evangelism-in-state-schools.pdf

Andy V's picture
Mon, 17/11/2014 - 12:30

Janet - Ok, noted re bias. With regard to the Christian or Religious v Humanitarian at a personal level I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you but in relation to the context of the school and thread I thought it was appropriate to try and see it from the school's perspective.


rogertitcombe's picture
Mon, 17/11/2014 - 12:38

Janet - Andy is right that I am making a slightly different argument, which has been argued by many others on this site, that religious proselytising of any religious or sectarian form has no place in the school system of a secular state, whatever the legal status of the school, LA, VA. VC, Academy or Free School. There is a national petition in circulation with many hundreds of thousands of signatures arguing for removing the legal compulsion to hold a daily act of Religious Service from state schools. This has very wide support. I am confident that that includes a majority of the general public, as I believe it does in relation to teachers, headteachers and educationalists.

It appears to me (albeit as an outsider) that the C of E is undergoing a cultural change in favour of a more revivalist, evangelical approach, rather than the more cerebral, traditional one of previous Archbishops of Canterbury. This has been taking place for a long time now. I have noticed it over many decades of my rare church attendances. My devout and close RC friends refer to it disrespectfully as, 'the happy clappers taking over'. I am much more polite. This is presumably the trend that 'Songs of Praise' is responding to.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that of course. Members and followers of religions are free to choose the forms of belief and worship they wish. As a secularist, I take freedom of religion very seriously and regard it as a sacrosanct human right. In my judgement it is only secular states that provide for it; theocracies tend not to.

However C of E schools have traditionally been inclusive, in spirit as well as to the letter of policies. This goes back a long way. I drew attention to such excellent pioneering work and attitude in my post about the Rev Richard Dawes at Kings Sombourne in the 19th century.

http://www.localschoolsnetwork.org.uk/2013/09/lessons-for-gove-from-the-...

The Anglican church has had a major role in the noble historical march towards free, high quality state education, not just in England, but all over the world. This history has resulted in the C of E having special powers and status in the English education system. In international terms this is very odd indeed, as is allowing prosetylising in any state school.

No-one, including me, has been too worried about this as religious teaching in C of E schools has been traditionally benign, uncontroversial, liberal and inclusive. The Secret Governor appears to be concerned that this is changing - certainly in his/her school. I drew attention to his/her Guardian article to draw attention to this possible development.

All I am doing is arguing that if this is indeed the case, and Andy is right that no proof has been presented, then this is not just a local concern but a fundamental one in terms of the status of faith schools in the English education system.

This is not a 'cause celebre' of mine. I feel even more strongly about Academies, Free Schools, school league tables, marketisation of the school system and privatisation of public services generally. For me, these concerns about faith schools fit comfortably alongside my other arguments that I try to keep both rational and reasonable.

This site is a forum for views about education. No-one has to agree with me or anyone else that posts here.

Andy V's picture
Mon, 17/11/2014 - 12:39

It matters not where the almost pantomime, yes, it is, no, it isn't scenario starts on this the thread is in serious danger of becoming polemical. Secularism and faith mix as well as any oil in water.

I don't mind discussing/debating within the topic of the thread but this potential hijacking into one group v another is simply unproductive and leads to wholly unnecessary situations.

On that note I'm out of here.

rogertitcombe's picture
Mon, 17/11/2014 - 12:48

Andy - You are of course entitled to your view. However, you appear to be trying to restrict the range of views expressed on this site and then alleging disreputable motives in those that disagree with you.


Andy V's picture
Mon, 17/11/2014 - 12:58

Roger, This is an absolutely typical example of how you operate and wilfully skew things:

"[I] appear to be trying to restrict the range of views expressed on this site and then alleging disreputable motives in those that disagree with you."

1. I have stuck to the head line of the thread - the article by the Secret Governor
2. I have highlighted that there are crucial differences between the Secret Governor's scenario and that of the Trojan Horse schools
3. I have highlighted that the Secret Governor did not / does not comprehend the difference between their scenario and that of the Birmingham schools

Quite where or how any of that can be described as me "alleging disreputable motives" is beyond me to the point of being risible.

rogertitcombe's picture
Mon, 17/11/2014 - 13:39

Andy - This is what you have written.

'It would be helpful to desist from opening debates that are biased to the point of ignoring balance, ignoring context and are prejudged before any one can contribute.'

'What I do acknowledge is a sense of frustration (even angst or bitterness) from the SG at the prospect of having to stop being a governor at the school when the 4 year term ends.'

'So for me this particular thread is contrived prejudged non-starter underpinned by trying to compare apples with tomatoes.'

'In my estimation it is a huge sadness that someone of your obvious intellect and experience is attempting to use this anonymously authored article about an anonymous CoE school to create a secularist cause cé•lè•bre on LSN.'

'Rather it is about starting prejudged discussion and attempting to compare apples with tomatoes. Both positions ill befit a Scientist whose skills are in logical and evidence, neither of which is evident in this piece.'

'Janet – You say, “You would, expect, therefore for the CoE school to have a Christian bias” and I sense a personal position coming through in the choice of “bias” which might be more accurately portrayed as ‘ethos’.'

(to Janet,) 'Whether any of us agree or disagree with state funded state (faith?) schools does not mean any of us should bring our personal baggage to bear in attempting to create a case where no appropriate evidence exists'

'Roger, This is an absolutely typical example of how you operate and wilfully skew things'

'Quite where or how any of that can be described as me “alleging disreputable motives” is beyond me to the point of being risible.'

Really?

Andy V's picture
Mon, 17/11/2014 - 16:06

All your quotes are lifted and isolated from their context which is an interesting rational and strategy to adopt.

First quote: was in direct response to your top of thread statement “It shows that allowing religious faith leaders of any complexion to run state funded schools is likely to lead to strife and injustice to the vast majority of parents who put educational issues ahead of faith issues”, which is judge and jury style statement. Not a debate but a simple statement presented as fact but devoid of any corroborating evidence nor is it couched in terms of a personally held view.

Second quote: contrary to you assertion that I was in some attacking the SG because he disagreed with me is plain nonsense. I was giving a personal view of what the SG had said and in terms that could be further from disparaging if I tried.

Third quote: This is linked to the first and using a variation of the usual comparator of apples and pears I used apples and tomatoes to emphasis the difference between the SG school and Birmingham Trojan Horse schools.

Fourth quote: is a personal opinion regarding what I perceived to be an attack on a school based purely on your personal convictions. In my opinion is not an attempt to disparage you rather it is an articulation of frustration and a statement of perception rooted in your approach.

Fifth quote: see response to third and fourth quotes.

Sixth quote: 1. Janet is more than able to challenge people by herself and indeed did so. She and I are able to engage in a manner that you and I do not seem able to. 2. Janet I am sure will put me right on this but my comment was not couched in a way so as to be ‘disparaging’.

Seventh quote: is a general statement that is not focused on any individual so quite how it can be judged ‘disparaging’, let alone aimed at someone who disagrees with me is a mystery.

Your closing quotes serve to highlight the risible nature of your claims against me. These latter comments are my opinion, which according to you I am entitled to have. The fact that you do not like them does not make them disparaging. To me they are accurate. This is not the first time you have openly attacked me through the vehicle of inaccurate and clumsy quotation and misinterpretation of my words. Not only that but you wilfully try to imply meaning to my statements that doesn't exist.

rogertitcombe's picture
Mon, 17/11/2014 - 16:10

Andy - I have never attacked you. All I have ever done is disagree with you. I do not propose to continue with this dialogue.


Andy V's picture
Mon, 17/11/2014 - 16:20

Well at the very least that will make two of us happy. In closing I would point up that it was I but you who made the following comment:

"Andy – You are of course entitled to your view. However, you appear to be trying to restrict the range of views expressed on this site and then alleging disreputable motives in those that disagree with you"

Add new comment

Already a member? Click here to log in before you comment. Or register with us.