1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

********** ...still banned ?

Discussion in 'Early Years' started by avoca75, Oct 20, 2009.

  1. Look at SB Blog reasons why?
    http://**********.blogspot.com/
    We are so lucky to have so many ready made resources from the team .
    How much longer will they put up with this before he with close his site?

     
  2. Still doesnt explain why some LEAs have asked schools to remove all SB products from their classrooms?
     
  3. Leapyearbaby64

    Leapyearbaby64 New commenter

    Why? Presumably they are happy to stand by the statement they have made (whatever it is) and have evidence to support it? The last I heard our LA was quite happy for everyone to use **********, and it was in fact an LA adviser that directed me there in the first place. I think that ********** deserves the courtesy of being told what the perceived problem is. I think we all do.
     
  4. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    I emailed Samuel/********** two years ago when this issue was first raised.
     
  5. I have had lunch with some friends from Uni today who teach in different authorities. The ********** ban was brought up and one of the girls told me what she claims is the reason it has been banned. However, if this is not the case, very nasty rumours are in circulation. I'm suprised SB haven't made a statement.
     
  6. Oops, no idea what happened there!
     
  7. We had an email from LA today with reasons why SB is blocked. So now believe that the rumours are in fact true as LA have issed a statement
    Dear Headteacher
    Filtering of **********As you will know SWGfL have blocked **********. Yesterday, the Grid issued a statement that I hope you will find reassuring about why this site was blocked. I have quoted the statement below for your information; (I have left this out)
    In the circumstances the Trust will continue to block **********.co.uk, until they are satisfied that suitable safeguarding arrangements have been made.
     
  8. Why have you left the statement out? Presumably that's the whole point of the email?
     
  9. Have also replied on Primary, saying that the problem is that not all LAs block. Surely if the police inform one LA they all get informed?
     
  10. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    No they don't often information remains within a single police force
     
  11. So the recommendations following Victoria Climbie and Baby P just get ignored. Again. Do you know, this makes me mad. If there is information out there that is true, we all should have it.
     
  12. And trample all over people's right to privacy in the process? There are laws to prevent this.
     
  13. If it is true, we all need it. If it is not true, then nobody should be spreading it.
     
  14. I don't think I expressed what I meant in my last post. I was referring to the fact that not all police authorities seem to share information with each other. In this climate when agencies are supposedly encouraged to share info to try to prevent what happened to Victoria Climbie happening again I thought it was odd. It wasn't really a comment on this particular subject. Apologies.
     
  15. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    It is highly unlikely LAs would be putting out false information but sensible for individuals posting on an open forum not to post details.
     
  16. I would suggest you look at the same thread on Primary (page 3) and make your own minds up.
     
  17. TES has seen fit to remove my post about Mr King/Kinge
     
  18. You are linking two names and appear to be making an accusation about the people concerned. I'm not surprised TES has removed them.
     
  19. I take it you read my deleted post and the previous (now deleted posts) which led to me doing an Internet search this morning. What I found had an awful lot of "coincidences" but I never actually said it was the SAME person. Either way, the truth will out and if the suggestions are not true then I agree it's a truly awful thing to suggest of someone who may be innocent.
     
  20. Unless you say what it is then it will continue to be seen as ridiculous. How can a poster be a problem?? Genuinely perplexed.
     

Share This Page