Definition

Main Entry: thug

Pronunciation: ˈthəg

Function: noun

Etymology: Hindi & Urdu ṭhag, literally, thief

Date: 1810

: a brutal ruffian or assassin : gangster, tough

— thug·gery ˈthə-g(ə-)rē noun

— thug·gish ˈthə-gish adjective

Richard Lee’s acerbic diatribe in the Aucklander is interesting and has prompted us to post this short video above showing how one parent of the school behaved when Steve exercised his right to peacefully protest outside the school, all those months ago.  Clearly Richard has confused brutish behaviour involving theft and criminal damage with peaceful democratic protest, redefining both to bolster up his own prejudice.

Just because “most” of the parents are “sick” of our (non-existent) protests, we hope that doesn’t imply that all these parents would behave in the same way that this individual did if we still feel we are not able to swallow the cruel and illegal way that this school has used our family.

It will be interesting to know how “most” parents can be sick of us protesting outside the school anyway, when we haven’t been there for months.  So absent have we been that parents whose children are even now being bullied, and who have been finding that the school were not fulfilling their obligations - just as we did - didn’t know about us at all, until another parent tipped them off about the website.  This would obviously not have been possible had we been waving at their car on their way in or out of the car-park at any time.

It only goes to show how badly we have been failing in our stated commitment to let people know how they may expect their sensitive children to be treated at and by this school when difficult problems with bullying may arise.

As we replied to the Aucklander, we have issued a permanent open invitation to any member of the school community who wishes to put forward the point of view of the school. We are seeking a balanced view.  We have issued this invitation numerous times already on this site and will shortly be formalising the invitation to the whole school community.  Nobody can say that the school community has not been asked!

The politics of the way parents have been left to make defence of the school (which has no true defence of its appalling abandonment, not only of the children, but also of the principles of Steiner Education as Rudolf Steiner himself promoted it), is a very interesting part of the story to say the least.  It will, no doubt, prove to be an important element in the programme whether someone feels they can represent the school and Steiner Education by appearing on the programme, or not. 

Certainly we have plenty of interesting material to examine in this regard, even before Richard Lee’s letter.

We are not going to pretend that we will not use all available evidence to show that what the school did was unconscionable, (there is plenty), but we will also look at any real, concrete evidence that people should know about that shows that our actions were of such a kind that our children should have been treated in this way. Indeed we have been asking for any such actual information for the last year, including through the Privacy Commission, and not one shred has been forthcoming.  The fact that we have asked multiple times, for mediation, for concrete reasons for the expulsions, and for contributions to the documentary will of course feature in the programme.

This invitation to appear is open to anybody who is prepared to stick to the facts (i.e. do the research) and chronology of the events that took place, using the available evidence (all correspondence between us and the school is online, right here).  

Obviously all contributors also need to be able to avoid sinking to the level of personal insult.  Featuring someone from the school will not contribute to a balanced debate if they ignore the facts and just give vent to their spleen, blind rage and prejudice.  For example, Richard Lee wrote to the Aucklander:

“Instead of behaving like adults and seeking mediation on the issue when it occurred, what we have had is this aggressive, self indulgent, vitriolic crusade against the school that has been going on for nearly a year now if not more.” 

Whereas, here are three different requests for mediation, all written very soon after the de facto expulsions on the 8th June 2009, (all from the archived Correspondence).

15th June 2009:

"Instead we would prefer to discuss, with open minds and a preparedness to listen, how to move things forward for the sake of the children.  Perhaps beginning with some mediated, off the record and without prejudice discussion either on or off school premises, sometime within the next week."

16th june 2009:

"Therefore, we ask you once more to talk with us, this time in a forum facilitated by an independent mediator where all parties are equally heard. We ask that dialogue is entered into on both sides with a genuine desire to look forwards and find a fair and appropriate solution."

And again on the 17th june 2009:

"We have yesterday written to the College further requesting dialogue on our dismissal and the important issues we have raised within the school. In our letter we acknowledged that they have found our communication methods difficult and stated our intention to allow them to point the way forward into meaningful dialogue, hopefully professionally mediated."

It will, in the end, be less embarrassing if people get their facts straight.

Our invitation therefore comes with two conditions, firstly to maintain a polite manner of communication, and secondly that whoever wants to discuss these matters is fully conversant and respectful of the facts and the chronology.  The only way you can do this is to read the correspondence between us and the school as this is the only existing record of events.  We have asked the school for any other information and they have told the Privacy Commission that they can’t remember.  

“Time passing makes detailed recollection not readily retrievable” - Mark Thornton

If, as a parent at the school, you feel so angry with us, for insisting on being heard,  that you feel justified in ignoring the real story of how events unfolded in a desperate desire to just say anything at all to try and defame us, then you won’t be alone.  

Sadly the very day that we were unlawfully excluded from the school, one parent, who I had counted a friend until then, and who not two days before had advised me to go to the police, summoned me round to her house and threatened me, should I go to the Press, that it could ‘backfire’ on me.  She cited examples of me being assertive, things she only knew about me because of our friendship, including how I managed to take my premie baby Our Other Child home early to establish breast-feeding, by taking on the hospital.  (That is how a 24 week borderline micro-premie ended up having three and a half years so far of being breast-fed, which was certainly highly unusual where we come from).

So although we did give out the leaflet Richard Lee mentioned the morning after the kids were shafted, in which we said that we felt we had “very little to lose” by publicising the situation, we didn’t actually do it.  

Did this “friend’s” betrayal affect me, coming on top of the school’s actions, and after her encouragement to confront the situation?  Clearly it did.  I couldn’t even believe it for a few days, so it certainly had her desired effect of stopping me from going to the Press. And that was actually the reason we made this website instead, to try and create a way to ask the parents to look at what we had to say and see what was actually happening and the way the school had used parental ‘concensus’ to hurt our kids.  Some did.   

Among them was a parent from the same class who congratulated us for our lack of retaliation and destructiveness towards the bullying boys even while we were so shocked and angry. 

So even that part of Richard’s letter is not true, because we never said we had ““nothing to lose” with this destructive campaign against the school”.

In a bit of an ironic twist, the fact that we didn’t go public then, except through the website, which admittedly has grown over the last year, is the reason we’re now in a position to make this programme, because the example of behaviour demonstrated by this school, has now become relevant to a current law making process.  We did not engineer this and could not have foreseen it, nevertheless, there it is. 

We do realise that keeping your children in an alternative school is of the utmost importance and that giving up everything to travel far away from those you love and who love you, means that you will do almost anything to secure your right to the alternative education we all want so much.  So we will be subject to attacks of all kinds, including the classic Switcheroo, that if you stand up to bullies, then you are called the bully. People will tend to see through that though. 

If you are reading this and thinking that you do just want to defend your school, but your passions do run so high, then the job of representing the school in a documentary is not for you.

Honestly folks, it’s pretty easy to spew insults, indulge in defamation and misrepresent the facts on a comments page of a local newspaper, but a balanced documentary has to be made on a more serious level than that.  This is a very serious subject and has to be rooted in facts not fiction.  

And in proper documentation of any story, as in a courtroom, chronology will be King.

Anybody seriously thinking and feeling that they have something to  contribute (bearing in mind the need for accuracy and politeness) can contact us at info@amazonfilms.net

btw, this isn’t going to go on for that long, because we’ve got other projects and so when we say “permanent invitation” we mean until we’ve made the programme, obviously.