Hebden Bridge Web Forum 2009: Stop don't read this

Stop don't read this

From Mark Piggott
Wednesday, 18 March 2009

Hello all, Mark Piggott here, you may remember I wrote the feature about Acre Mill for the Telegraph. Now a national newspaper has asked me to look into Ms Rustamova’s case and try to speak to some of the parents /pupils involved, plus the school, union etc.

If anyone involved wants to chat either on or off the record (yes that does still happen) please feel free to contact me. I feel strongly about this as it was Steve Cann who first encouraged me to write for a living, as the HB Times reported last year.
Thanks everyone
Mark P

From H Gregg
Wednesday, 18 March 2009

This may be the only chance we get to get national coverage for Leonora & Steve's case from a genuinely supportive journalist - help to publicise the injustice of this situation.

From Andrew Hall
Thursday, 19 March 2009

I must admit that I don't care about what happens to the teachers in this case. It is a matter of supreme indifference to me. What I do care about, however, is investigative journalists giving the impression that their reporting may be biased.

Mr Piggott states "I feel strongly about this as it was Steve Cann who first encouraged me to write for a living..". Nothing wrong with that per se, but to include it in a posting about an article he hopes to write for a national newspaper is at best unwise, and at worst shows an alarming lack of professionalism.

Surely journalist should approach any topic from an unbiased point of view. This doesn't seem to be the case with Mr Piggott.

And of course I'm not alone in my observations. The subsequent poster on this thread says "This may be the only chance we get to get national coverage for Leonora & Steve's case from a genuinely supportive journalist - help to publicise the injustice of this situation".

From H Gregg
Thursday, 19 March 2009

The BBC has frequently been accused of political bias in its reporting - by both the Left and The Right. It is, of course, subjective. I would prefer to wait and see before making judgement. Mark is on record already for his support of Mr Cann, I think it was very honest of him to make people aware of that. There are many respected and professional investigative journalists with an agenda; it doesn't make their contributions any less important. The starting point of any journey will dictate its course.

From Rev Tony Buglass
Friday, 20 March 2009

"...help to publicise the injustice of this situation"

So - good, objective journalism, right? This assumes the process is unjust, which none of you know because you are not part of the process. Nor can you be part of the process without jeopardising that very process, because of the need to protect the right of both teachers to confidentiality.

I am as concerned as anyone that this should be done properly, and that the issues should be sorted out, and that two excellent teachers get on with their careers. I have already said I think the process is taking too long - friends in industry tell me that tribunals and enquiries normally take priority, and have a time limit. But this kind of sensationalism doesn't seem to me to be helping.

From Michael Duane
Friday, 20 March 2009

"This assumes the process is unjust, which none of you know because you are not part of the process. "

1. We don't know the charges. This is unjust

2. The two teachers are not allowed to talk with anyone about the case. This is unjust because they will not be able to prepare any defence. (Difficult anyway when you don't know the charge)

3. This whole business has dragged on for over two months. This is unjust. "Justice delayed, is justice denied" (Gladstone)

4. If the charges were serious, the police would be involved. As this doesn't appear to be the case, then it is unjust to both teachers and students for them to be suspended pending any hearing.

According to Wikipedia, one of the rules of natural justice is that "Justice should be seen to be done". If the community is satisfied that justice has been done, they will continue to place their faith in the process.

Yesterday, a man was freed from prison after 27 years for a crime he didn't do. Locally, Stefan Kiszko spent 16 years in prison for a crime he didn't do. There are countless other examples of miscarriages of justice. You will probably reply that the Rusty/Cann case does not involve the police or the courts. In 1990, twenty Rochdale children were removed from their homes by social services - it took 16 years for these families to receive an apology and compensation for the false allegations. There are countless other similar cases and in all of them "due process" will have been followed.

If communities keep quiet and don't stay vigilant, justice can slip away. Let's not see that happen here. Reinstate the teachers now. If there are charges, they need to answer let these charges be known and let the teachers talk.

From Rev Tony Buglass
Friday, 20 March 2009

No, Michael.

"We don't know the charges. This is unjust"
No, it isn't, it's protection of confidentiality. You don't know the charges because you don't need to. Those who are part of the process need to know, you aren't, and don't.

"The two teachers are not allowed to talk with anyone about the case. This is unjust because they will not be able to prepare any defence. (Difficult anyway when you don't know the charge)"
They are not allowed to talk to anyone outside the process. They must know what they are charged with, and they must be discussing it with their representatives and defence team. You are making a lot of assumptions on the basis of what you don't know. Always dangerous.

"If the charges were serious, the police would be involved. As this doesn't appear to be the case, then it is unjust to both teachers and students for them to be suspended pending any hearing."
Is there any suggestion that criminal offences are involved? No. So there is no reason for the police to be involved. Are there breaches of discipline involved? Allegedly - so it is normal process for the teachers to be suspended, that is removed from the situation while it is examined.

Nice quote from Gladstone, but it assumes that justice has been delayed, rather than simply taking time to achieve. I have already said that in my opinion this is taking too long. The process should be prioritised and resolved as quickly as possible.

As far as I can see, the school governors are doing their job, and doing it by the book. None of us have any reason to suspect otherwise. When the process is complete, I expect the results will be made public. If at that point it is clear that injustice has taken place, the teachers will have the right of appeal and the governors could face legal action. Until that is the case, I see no point in assuming that they are doing anything wrong. I suggest people dial back their rhetoric - and that includes anyone talking to the press. It won't help.

From Mark Piggott
Saturday, 21 March 2009

Ah yes, “objectivity”: I remember that one. Almost a quarter of a century ago, when I first wrote articles for papers like the Guardian and Observer (and the Times and Telegraph, Reverend Buglass, if you’re looking for “balance”), I seem to recall having a fair few debates on the subject: can a journalist ever be truly objective?

The general consensus among colleagues and I was that you can’t; the very fact you choose to write about certain subjects and not others, for instance, is partly determined by your own beliefs and interests. If you look at the subject of the features I’ve written about in the past, you’ll probably find they say more about me than the content of the features themselves.

However: if I were to write about, say, Acre Mill, and speak to the victims but not the company, I’d feel my article was only telling half the story. Unless one is writing an opinion-based piece (which is happening more now, with the demise of newspapers), one should always get as many points of view as possible so the reader can make up their own mind.

Similarly, although my sympathies are probably with the teachers in this case (as I made clear to the Guardian when I approached them), I believe I’d have failed in my task had I not sought the views of the school, local authority and parents who believe “Miss Rusty” has made a mistake. Sadly, not one parent who disagreed with Miss Rusty contacted me so I’ve been unable to quote them.
It might be an idea, reverend, if rather than condemning what I’ve written before you read it, you wait with an open (objective) mind. If having read the article you disagree with my position, by all means respond however you see fit.

Whether I’ve demonstrated a lack of professionalism by stating that I found Mr Cann a superb teacher, I’ll let others be the judge. I would say that I’m an author who writes for the papers rather than vice versa, but I’m proud of my journalism and overall think I’m “fair”; as fair as it’s possible to be, when in possession of a world-view shaped by one’s experiences – or, as it’s called, being human.
An open mind is a wonderful thing; for instance, although I find the idea of any sentient adult believing in supernatural forces quite bizarre, I’m willing to concede that occasionally, religion can be a force for good. You are of course welcome to your beliefs and your profession; I only hope that in return, you will respect mine.

From Rev Tony Buglass
Sunday, 22 March 2009

"can a journalist ever be truly objective?"

Can anyone? Not a chance. Even empirical science is determined by the agenda or quest of the experimenter.

However, what I reacted to was the proposed aim of the exercise - "to publicise the injustice of this situation." You can take as balanced an approach as you like, but if that is your aim it doesn't matter - you will demonstrate your target. Now, if you had said "help us to make people aware of his situation", namely a difficult situation in which two popular teachers and a school find themselves having to work through a protracted discipline process together, I'd have been very happy. If you are assuming at the outset that the process is unjust, I have to disagree. It might be, but neither you nor I know that.

"You are of course welcome to your beliefs and your profession; I only hope that in return, you will respect mine."

Thank you. I do. I happen to disagree with your approach on this issue, but that is all. As to supernatural - well, I have an open mind, as you say, and I don't rule it out. It all depends on what you mean by supernatural or spiritual. But that is another discussion.

From Mark Piggott
Sunday, 22 March 2009

Look reverend, I’m not going to get into a big debate about this, so this is my last response, but you appear to be quoting me as saying “publicise the injustice of this situation” – I didn’t write that. I said: “Now a national newspaper has asked me to look into Ms Rustamova’s case and try to speak to some of the parents /pupils involved, plus the school, union etc.” OK?

From Rev Tony Buglass
Sunday, 22 March 2009

No, Mark, you didn't write it - Andrew Hall did. I reacted to that statement, and you challenged my reaction. I challenged your response. That's all.

To be more precise, Andrew Hall quoted it from H Gregg's email.

That'll teach me to check my sources! Or should that be my sources' sources...?

From Robin Hoyle
Monday, 23 March 2009

H Gregg described the request from Mark to contact him re: the article as 'publicising the injustice of the situation'. I'm afraid that as soon as that comment was made I and many others who disagree with the current Friends of Rusty and Steve Campaign decided not to comment. If you need to get an alternative view there are other ways of contacting people, though reading between the lines an article has been written which doesnot relfect that others in the community may hold different views. Even the Mail on Sunday found my contact details, Mark, and rang and texted and emailed until told to get lost. Can't be that difficult then can it?

From Michael Duane
Monday, 23 March 2009

I think someone has already mentioned Kafka. One book of his books I would recommend reading is The Trial. The first sentence sets the tone. "Somebody must have been telling lies about Joseph K., for without having done anything wrong he was arrested one fine morning."

A couple of pages later, Joseph K asks, "And why am I under arrest?"

The reply is "That's something we're not allowed to tell you. Go into your room and wait there. Proceedings are underway and you'll learn about everything all in good time."

From Anne H
Monday, 23 March 2009

Michael, if Miss Rusty, like Kafka, has not been told why she had been suspended, then she certainly has very good cause for complaint! But I doubt that very much.

You, the protesting pupils, and the Friends of Rusty and Steve, on the other hand, do not have a right to know the details.

If I had been suspended by my employer, pending a disciplinary investigation, the details would be confidential, and that would be in the best interests of me, my employer and 'the injured parties' if there were any.
For people who work with children, I would expect the discipline to be even tighter and the cushion of confidentiality to be even thicker.

Why do so many people seem to think they have a right to know everything?

From Mark Piggott
Monday, 23 March 2009

“Can’t be that difficult then.. can it?” Well... it is fairly difficult to get a comment, Robin, from someone who writes in the very same paragraph they’d already “decided not to comment”. If you’ve decided not to comment, I can’t really quote you, can I? Which is why I asked the head, governor and LA for a quote. I’d love to know how you can read between the lines of an article that hasn’t been published yet... ach, enough already...

From H Gregg
Tuesday, 24 March 2009

Anne H - It is frequently (possibly exclusively) the case that a teacher doesn't know the allegations against them until shortly before the hearing. There are examples on the internet of teachers not knowing what the charges are against them for four months and more. I have a (teacher) friend in Leicester who this has happened to recently. I take it from your post that if this is the case with Miss Rusty, that you would consider this to be 'an injustice' and worth complaining about. Maybe Rev. Buglass would also consider this to be unjust (given his comments about the time delay).

The law is sometimes an ass. It is not good enough to say "the law is the law we must obey". With that attitude we would still have no votes for women, slavery et al. Protest is valid in a democracy and certainly not something we deny to young people.

From Anne H
Tuesday, 24 March 2009

H Gregg. The key word here is 'if'. IF Miss Rusty hasn't been told why she's been suspended then it seems unfair. But in the Guardian article, her Union says that the school is following the procedures agreed with the Union, so why would you think otherwise?

In order to protect children, I imagine these procedures are weighted heavily in favour of protecting pupils and sometimes against teachers. As a parent, I would have it no other way.

The (voluntary) job of School Governor must have been extremely difficult these last few weeks, having to stick to the correct procedures and also trying to be fair to a teacher who is clearly inspirational. Anyone who feels they could do the job better should consider putting themselves up for election next time.

From Tessa Gordziejko
Tuesday, 24 March 2009

In Mark Pigott's contribution 21st March he says 'not one parent who disagreed with Miss Rusty contacted me'. This is not surprising as you would be hard pushed to find a parent in Hebden Bridge with experience of either teacher who did not consider them good teachers. Mark is confusing, as are many, disagreement with the aims and methods of the campaign with censure of the teachers. When the process has run its course the hearing has been held and its findings communicated publicly, then we will decide what our opinion is on the actions and activities of these two teachers, details of which at present we, quite rightly do not have.

From Anne H
Wednesday, 25 March 2009

If my daughter had still been at Calder High I would start up a parents’ campaign along the lines of “We support the process that the governors, the suspended teachers and their Union are going through, which recognises the priority to protect our young people. We hope that the outcome will not only serve this purpose but will also reflect the tremendous amount of respect that many students and parents have for these two inspirational teachers”

Surely, there must be some parents who are currently involved in the school who feel this way too? Wouldn’t this be a more constructive approach than “We don’t trust the process and we don’t think the outcome will provide justice for the teachers” .