Utter Insanity…

In a statement, head teacher Janet Adamson said: “We are unable to discuss conduct issues relating to individual children.

“However, in this matter, we are satisfied we have acted in accordance with the council’s guidance for schools on the reporting of racist incidents.”

Vanessa Harvey-Samuel, head of localities and learning at Hull City Council, said: “There is a statutory duty to report any incident that is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.

“The council’s policy is informed by Ofsted’s guidance on the inspection framework for schools in England.”

Abel Rivera, chief officer of Humber All Nations Alliance, which works with 38 different ethnic groups in Hull to encourage race equality, backed the school.

He said: “The school has to follow its racism policy.

“The boy has singled another pupil out on the basis of his colour. That is discrimination and it’s wrong.”

So, what do we have here? A vicious schoolyard fight? Racist abuse hurled at an ethnic pupil?

No. Not exactly.

Elliott Dearlove asked the question of the five-year-old boy at Griffin Primary School in Barham Road, east Hull.

A question? How can a question be ‘racist’? Well, little Elliot (who, bear in mind, is all of seven years old), asked a fellow pupil if he was “brown because he was from Africa”.

Yes, that’s it. That’s all. But it’s apparently enough for the balloon to go up, and parents to be summoned, and the whole panoply of ‘anti-racism’ to be brought to bear. Luckily for little Elliot, his mother isn’t one to be cowed:

Miss White says she was led to the head teacher’s office, where she was asked to sign a form.

“The form said my son had made a racist remark,” she said.

“I refused to sign it. I told the teacher I did not agree the comment was racist.

“My son is inquisitive. He always likes to asks questions. But that does not make him a racist.”

No, it doesn’t.

What it does make him is a lightning rod for the utter stupidity of the state-employed adults and racemongers in this case, who are unable to make judgements and hide behind their rules and regulations when challenged on their idiocy.

H/T: Smoking Hot via email

24 comments for “Utter Insanity…

  1. February 19, 2012 at 1:47 pm

    “There is a statutory duty to report any incident that is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.”

    If anyone ever says they have a Statutory Duty, make them produce the statute. Often they are talking utter bollocks and hoping that “statutory” is a magic word which will make their blethering in to law.

    Note also that there are two people, probably both publicly funded whose jobs can be cut at once. The citizens of Hull do not need to be paying for either Vanessa Harvey-Samuel, head of localities and learning at Hull City Council, or donating any money to Abel Rivera, chief officer of Humber All Nations Alliance.

    There, that should save at least £150k by the time you take employers NI and pension contributions in to account. These are non-jobs.

    Don’t forget, Elliot’s Mum, to make a counter-accusation of racism against Abel Rivera. Admittedly your child is white but it’s worth annoying Trevor Phillips with this anyway, make him earn his money. I certainly perceive it to be racist, and since there is no limitiation on who can perceive racism, I might give it a stir.

    I think we already agreed that scrapping the EHRC would fund at least ten schools to the tune of £7m a year.

  2. Twisted Root
    February 19, 2012 at 2:21 pm

    I’m seeing more of these stories where the parent (if the child is fortunate enough to have one) refuses to be cowed. A positive sign surely?

    • February 20, 2012 at 5:50 am

      Yes, very much so!

  3. February 19, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    Hull Daily Mail pulled 150+ comments from that article despite virtually all of them being constructive. The common theme was condemnation of this racism accusation being brought against the 7yr old and especially the 3 bodies that backed this action against the youngster. What a sorry state journalism is in.

    • February 20, 2012 at 5:50 am

      I’m not sure what we have these days counts as ‘journalism’ any more…

  4. February 19, 2012 at 5:23 pm

    This is of course a particularly ridiculous case, and illustrates just how nasty some PC drones can be when they’re in positions of authority. In order to combat this increasing tendency to demonise and destroy the reputations of members the White indigenous population, we need to launch a campaign to abolish the ridiculous Macpherson race legislation. Only then will we once again be able to think, speak and act rationally without fear of falling victim to some anti-White racist witch-hunt: http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Boy-7-faces-racism-claim-curious-question-Griffin/story-15265085-detail/story.html

  5. nisakiman
    February 19, 2012 at 5:33 pm

    The most worrying thing about this whole affair is that I’m not even surprised

    • February 19, 2012 at 6:21 pm

      I saw it that way too.

  6. February 19, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    The substance of Smoking Hot’s comment is the one which is even more disgraceful than the original incident. And as for signing a form – sheesh – what’s this society come to?

  7. Dave_G
    February 19, 2012 at 8:41 pm

    Hang on – who MADE the complaint? Surely not the 7 year old? Did the 5 year old ‘fess up and admit the offense then? No. Someone in ‘authority’ overheard and made the complaint based on THEIR own prejudices.
    Keep the kid and his mother out of this – we need to aim our derision at the REAL perpetrator who, AFAIK remains unidentified.

    • February 19, 2012 at 9:10 pm

      The younger boy’s mother complained to the school, which launched an investigation.

      Which does not excuse the Head who is completely in the wrong here, lacking common sense and acting so completely against Eliott’s best interest that there are grounds for a formal complaint to the governors or, given the harassment of a 7 year old child, to the police.

      • Maaarrghk!
        February 22, 2012 at 10:15 am

        I agree that the Head is completely in the wrong, but the LAW does not. That REALLY is the course of action that the LAW requires her to take.

        It could be that she agrees with this law. However, even if she herself thinks it’s a load of bollocks, she HAS to take the action she did if she wants to keep her job.

        The problem with laws like this is that more of us have to become weasels to survive.

        • February 23, 2012 at 12:29 pm

          Please see my first comment. Law, what law? Just because somebody scuttles about claiming they have a ‘statutory duty’ does not make it so. The guidelines from OFSTED are not statutes or even statutory instruments.

          Nor, as it happens, are they much in the way of guidelines. All it says is that the local authorities ought to have a policy on dealing with racism. Fair enough. So far I’ve not had any luck in finding out what Hull’s policy is but that won’t be statutory i.e. not law, either.

          Fundamentally, there was no racism involved so any hiding behing ‘racism policies’ is irrelevant.

          Writing LAW in big letters won’t make it law.

  8. February 19, 2012 at 9:39 pm

    For info: charity nunber 1116725
    HUMBER ALL NATIONS ALLIANCE LIMITED

    The accounts have the kind of donors you would expect.
    Several which stand out are:
    Hull Primary Care Trust (i.e. the NHS) £175,677
    City Health Care Partnership project £21,750
    Humber NHS Trust £7,850
    East Riding Migrant Impact Fund £11,834 (in which East Riding Council admit that migrants have an impact such that charitiable funding has to be done.)

    Other donors are listed in the accounts on page 13 of the accounts
    http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends25%5C0001116725_ac_20110331_e_c.pdf

    Why is the NHS giving money under several headings to this organization?

    • Carry on Cutting
      February 19, 2012 at 11:20 pm

      Looks like there’s plenty of scope for NHS cuts without harming the frontline one iota then.

      And then you realise there are 150 Primary Care trusts. Wonder how much more of these fake charidees exist from the NHS teat?

      Of course, the bulk of the remainder comes from the Idiot Tax, aka the National Lottery’s so called Good Causes fund.

  9. Monty
    February 19, 2012 at 11:59 pm

    Why is anyone even surprised at this?

    Professional race hustlers need a critical mass of reported racism, to maintain their sinecures. If it starts getting thin on the ground, they have to stoke some up, or make it up.

  10. Junican
    February 20, 2012 at 1:52 am

    I think that Woman on a Raft nails it.

    1) Why are these organisations being funded by the Health Service?

    2) What do they have to do to justify their existence?

    Quelle pong.

  11. Able
    February 20, 2012 at 5:56 pm

    Hmm, it used to be that social workers were the shock-troops of the feminist and left-wing ideologies. Now it becomes plainer everyday that teachers are aiming for that crown.

    That the mother complained is hardly unexpected, after all she’ll be living rent free with substantial income from the state (even if she can be bothered to work) and of course saw the chance for another little earner to bolster her income. That and the fact she obviously feels the seven year old should be publicly flogged and made to pay her reparations for all those salves he’s owned, the evil little boy will obviously be turning to up school wearing a sheet next unless he’s stopped FFS.

    I am repeatedly reminded of just how rare common sense has become in this country, in particular it seems as if it’s complete lack is de rigueur for any post with authority in pc Britain. I truly despair!

    • General Pyston Broak
      February 22, 2012 at 3:19 pm

      If you follow the link in the article, there is another link to a subsequent article where the mother of the 5 year old says she didn’t accuse the 7 year old of being racist and is claiming that it is now impacting her life. This really is a lose lose situation.

      P.S. 7 year old Elliot Dearlove, mother Hayley White, father Lee Tyler. Oh what a tangled web we weave.

      • Able
        February 22, 2012 at 9:53 pm

        Thanks, I’d missed that!

        The point remains however. The mother quite cheerfully admits having complained to the school about this question. Just what did she then expect from these bastions of political correctness (otherwise and formerly known as teachers)? By definition her stating that she was affected/upset by this question ticked all the little boxes on the ‘is this white person being a racist’ form.

        Maybe if she’d spoken to the boys parents instead of ‘running to the authorities’ there would have been different outcome (Assuming the furore isn’t the only reason she suddenly declares she’d not accused the young boy of racism? Me, I’m a cynic, I know what I’ll end up thinking because by acting as she did, and saying what she said, she may not have explicitly said the R-word but she certainly made the accusation).

        Oh, and the multiple surnames do seem to indicate that all involved are typical of modern British society, don’t they?

        As I said, I truly despair!

  12. Able
    February 20, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    OOps, slaves not salves, I hate autocomplete! lol

  13. Monty
    February 20, 2012 at 10:42 pm

    This is a form of abuse committed against the child, and it has resulted in him enduring the very distress it was designed to. His mother was wise to refuse to sign the form, and I hope there is some legal expert out there who will help her to seek the legal redress her child is entitled to. There are some very significant examples of the futility of the “only following orders” excuse when villains were convicted of criminal behaviour in the past. Your moral and ethical standards should not be tossed aside because some dork with a clipboard told you to follow his “policy”.

  14. ANON
    March 10, 2012 at 11:22 pm

    why not read the facts here http://wp.me/p2gORO-4

    • March 11, 2012 at 6:19 am

      Thanks for the link. Very informative.

      So, apart from the rest of the ‘she said, I said’ you detail, which no-one other than the parties involved can really verify, your main gripe is that: “So onto the CRUCIAL part of Hayley’s story, the FORMS, well I have seen the forms, and let me make this quite clear. NOWHERE on that form is a place for Hayley’s signature.”

      That seems rather a small thing to get hung up on, no?

      Oh, and this is great! “they are guidelines which are set out to help Local authorities assess numbers of incidents. Not set out to brand children racists.”

      That may have been what they were designed for, but it clearly isn’t what they are doing, isn’t it?

      But…you have learned one valuable lesson: “I contacted Karl and asked him why he felt he needed to comment on something he knew only Hayley’s side on, His reply to me was, and she’s a member of my constituent- Well so am I? And so isGriffinprimary school. He insisted he had to comment to the Mail because it a conservative paper and if he didn’t then they would of made him look like he didn’t support his constituent. Needless to say he won’t be getting my vote again.”

      Did you think you were worth more as a voter to your MP than the other mother? If so, why?

Comments are closed.