Cease and Desist
Brian Leveson • July 8, 2021
Following a response to a private CEASE and DESIST notice regarding meetings with SEND parent carers, we now take further action by publicly publishing a CEASE and DESIST notice
A Cease and Desist notice is published here regarding blaming parents for the statutory failings of the local authority
In a recent meeting with SEND parents and professionals, parents found themselves accused for the failings of the local authority to carry out its statutory duty.
Here we make it clear that:
- In all SEND meetings where parents are in attendance or not in attendance, that any blaming of any parents for the failing of the local authority to deliver its duties with regard to SEND and the implementation of the 2014 SEND Reforms, in particular although not exclusively those relating to the Haringey Involve parent carer forum, is not acceptable
- The false allegations made in the meeting must never be repeated
The Cease and Desist notice we sent privately was rejected on the following grounds (edited to maintain privacy)
In the response the author extended apologies for the upset that was caused in the meeting and understands just how deeply distressing it was.
In spite of this, they state that
- The Chair of the meeting made it very clear that this meeting was a place to discuss the future of the SEND Strategy in Haringey with the parents of children and young people in Haringey and not a place for any interpersonal accusations or disagreements.
- The parent who caused the upset had apologised in the meeting.
A double dose of the Victim Blaming culture
This Cease and Desist notice is published for the following reasons and not least because it took more that half an hour of protest before it was stated that the meeting was NOT a place for interpersonal allegations, which then led to the disagreement:
The Chair of the meeting did not make it clear at the beginning of the meeting
that: t his meeting was a place to discuss the future of the SEND Strategy in Haringey with the parents of children and young people in Haringey and not a place for any interpersonal accusations or disagreements.
The Chair of the meeting did not make it clear when the parent made the allegations
that: t his meeting was a place to discuss the future of the SEND Strategy in Haringey with the parents of children and young people in Haringey and not a place for any interpersonal accusations or disagreements.
The Chair of the meeting did not make it clear when protests were strongly made that the allegations were unfounded and false, (in deed person repeated them and added to them that they had email evidence to support the allegations
)
that: t his meeting was a place to discuss the future of the SEND Strategy in Haringey with the parents of children and young people in Haringey and not a place for any interpersonal accusations or disagreements.
Th
e Chair of the meeting
did make it clear after a protest for about half an hour that:
t his meeting was a place to discuss the future of the SEND Strategy in Haringey with the parents of children and young people in Haringey and not a place for any interpersonal accusations or disagreements.
In doing so, The Chair of the meeting was addressing the comments to the victim of the allegation
, sometime after the allegation had been made and shortly before it was requested that the victim of the allegations leave the meeting and go to a break out room (for being so upset that the false allegations were ALLOWED to be made and repeated and built upon).
Nothing was done to prevent the false allegation being made.
Nothing in the meeting was said to make it clear that making the allegation in the first place was unacceptabl
e.
It was only after ceaseless and persistent escalation of the issue was it eventually addressed that in as much as making allegations against parents was not the purpose of the meeting - rather than it was not appropriate to make the allegations in the forst place, or attack another parent carer.
When a 'safe space' was requested, the response was 'we are all consenting adults'.
When a 'safe space' was requested, the response was 'we are all consenting adults'.
And it appears that the victim was being addressed, not the perpetrator.
The response we received showed 'wholehearted agreement' with the local authority - from an organisation that has a legal duty to be independent
It is never 'agreeable' to blame parents for the statutory failings of the local authority.
IT WAS NEVER MADE CLEAR THAT WAS NOT OK
What was made clear was 'the purpose of the meeting'. Up until that point, it was not clear if and when other attacks or accusations could, would or should be made about any parents.
IT REMAINS THE CASE THAT PARENTS CAN
BE BLAMED FOR THE STATUTORY FAILINGS OF THE LOCAL AUTHORITY - as long as they are not pointed and personal and in a meeting that serves another purpose.
Whilst 'wholeheartedly' showing support for the position of the local authority, this 'independent' organisation is dismissing the fact that clarification about the 'purpose of the meeting' took 30 minutes, and did not absolutely make clear that it is never OK to blame any parents for the statutory failings of the local authority.
This is not the first time parents have been attacked in meetings. Which makes this Cease and Desist notice necessary.
WE DON'T WANT TO BE REPEATEDLY ATTACKED AND THEN APOLOGISED TO - WE WANT NOT TO BE ATTACKED. THE APOLOGY BECOMES IRRELEVANT AFTER A WHILE. STOP THE ATTACKS ON PARENTS IN MEETINGS. CEASE AND DESIST.
Having been blamed for the statutory failings of the local authority - the victim was then blamed for getting upset for being blamed for the statutory failings of the local authority
Some questions to consider when attending meetings
- Is there ever an appropriate place to make personal attacks in a public meeting, against other attendees of the meeting, especially in meetings involving SEND parent carers?
- What is the appropriate course of action should a personal attack ever occur in a public meeting involving SEND parent carers?
- What could have happened to stop the situation escalating for 30 minutes or so in a public meeting involving SEND parent carers?
- What could happen to stop the situation arising in the first place in public meetings involving SEND parent carers?
- When and were will the public meetings to vilify another parent carer be held?
- How will the parent who is to be vilified be selected?
- What sort of allegations is it permissible to make against another parent carer in a public meeting?
Or is it the case that whenever you go to a public meeting about Haringey SEND you are consenting to be attacked and accused?
If you thought SEND was bad - the NHS is seemingly prepared to throw away money to private companies
About 3 or 4 times a year we get the euphemistic message 'Parents please note we have put a letter in your child's bag' - its a world away from how a child's death was handled in my child's first school
More of a trial by ordeal than a well organised clearly set out administrative process for moving the care of vulnerable young adults from Haringey's Children's Services to Adult Services. We have been failed at every stage of the process.
Never EVER get on the bus without a camera running if you need the priority wheelchair space
The reality of using a London Bus in the teeming rain on a Sunday afternoon is no joke when the parents of a paraplegic person in a wheelchair clash with the self-entitled buggy-pushing parents of toddlers.
Haringey SEND Transport are insisting that a 17 year old minibus with no air conditioning is a suitable vehicle to transport my paraplegic son in this heatwave. The appalling conditions inside the minibus inside the bus is something they knew about last summer, yet they have to date done nothing whatsoever provide a suitable minibus this year nor appropriately mitigate the temperatures inside the minibus.The conditions inside the minibus are so bad that they triggered multiple seizures during the heatwave as my son has epilepsy, which they SEND transport department know about and they also know that they are triggered by heat.It is not just son who is impacted: last year we know of one child who died on Haringey SEND Transport in the summer heatwave and another who had seizures.
I am simply asking a question - are we all absolutely certain that the road closure / travel restrictions (commonly know as LTNs) placed on some of the most severely disabled people who are wholly reliant on cars are absolutely necessary
Haringey's road closures exemptions policy for disabled people is not fit for purpose, unduly burdensome and intrusive - it's time to stand up against the pro-LTN lycra-clad cycling bullies
Is the argument for and against exemptions for disabled people in Low Traffic Neighbourhoods really a case of GOOD versus EVIL?
Letters from Labour Grandees and survey results from Haringey Council show people who opposed LTNs are women, elderly and disabled. Yet Peray Ahmet has described anti-LTN people as homophobic, islamophobic, sexist, racist and xenophobic.
