Oyston attends Labour fundraiser

The owner of Blackpool Football Club, one time owner of Lancashire Life and the Red Rose Radio Stations, attended a Labour Party fundraiser at Wembley.

The news, both BBC and the tabloids all led with the headline "Convicted Rapist Attends Labour Party Bash"

Now living in Blackpool at the time, I remember the widespread disbelief when he was convicted, letters were written to MP's, the media etc etc. It was even mentioned in the House of Commons .

Just before Oyston went to trial, the rules relating to the rape cases were changed, and when I say just before I mean literally 5 days before.

A lot of people myself included wanted to know how a person could be charged with serious sexual assault years after the offence had taken place, now these days cases such as this are becoming more and more accepted, especially with regards to the Catholic Church and abuse. But in 1996, it was virtually unheard of, Oystons case centred around allegations of assault against a model he was reported to have committed whilst she was in his car and then later at his home Claughton Hall near Lancaster.

It came out at the trial that the young lady/model gave Oyston a blow job in the back of his car, then when they arrived back at his home she went to his bedroom and they had sex. A few years later the lady then went to the Police alleging rape, her friend who was both in the car and also in the bedroom at Claughton Hall, denied any offences took place.

I don't think Oyston raped the lady/model at the time, but he was convicted in court, he appealed and lost, he went on to serve 4 years of a 6 year sentence, only being released on licence after forcing a Judicial review over the Parole Boards refusal to release him on licence, as he refused to admit to his guilt and showed no remorse for his crime. He won the judicial review and was released on licence.

Now whether he did or did not commit the crime, as far as I am concerned he has paid for it, both in terms of losing his liberty and loss of parts of his businesses, his radio stations were taken off him as he was deemed an unfit person to hold a radio licence.

He has become somewhat of a recluse since his release from prison, and rarely ventures out. Occasional outings to watch Blackpool play usually at home, the most people have seen of him.

Now his name has again been dragged through the mud, not I think in anyway to hurt him, but as a deliberate smear against the Labour party! Now I hate the NuLabour party as much as the next man, I believe they have sold this country down the river and have decimated our rights and freedoms, but to use a man who has always maintained his innocence, who did his time, who had to fight to gain parole, and obtain and win a Judicial Review to gain his freedom, deserves to be left alone in peace. Not to be used as a pawn in the medias attempts to get Brown and NuLabour.

School Rules just petty?

As far as I am aware, until children "Come of Age", currently on their 18th Birthday, their parents make decisions on their behalf. I do with my children, as do countless other parents. The reasons are quite simple, even at 15,16 and 17 years of age, some children do not always have the wherewithal to look after themselves or their own interests, therefore the parents have this responsibility. Especially if the child or minor is still in full time education.

Hurworth School, near Darlington County Durham has banned a pupil Miss Kayleigh Baker from "other voluntary activities" because her parents refused to sign a form for her to attend extra revision lessons. Part of these other voluntary activities, include playing for the netball team and attending the school prom.

The item has hit the BBC news website, please have a read see what you think.

My thoughts are, that as Miss Baker is already a high achiever, a prefect at the school, a member of the school team and until information to the contrary comes to light, I believe her parents are looking after her best interests. They and they alone know the stress that she is capable of managing, they and they alone have an idea of what she is capable of.

According to the Head Dean Judson, as her parents refused to sign allowing extra revision, she was banned form other voluntary activities. Which is a bit like taking the ball home because you can't get your own way. We have no way of knowing whether Miss Baker actually needs the extra classes, or even if the extra classes would not harm an otherwise high achieving student. What we appear to have is a school versus parent as to who knows best about a child needs.

School chief executive Eamonn Farrar said the extra study sessions were made compulsory five years ago.

He said: "If we were to give the children the choice of attending the extra study sessions, what do you think the response would be? They wouldn't attend.

I actually doubt that what Mr Farrar has said here is strictly true, most parents would jump at the chance to have their child given extra tuition just before exams, and would therefore force or otherwise cajole their child into attending.

But it must surely follow that any parent who would prefer their child to not attend these extra lessons, must have valid reasons for doing so. One can only assume that Miss Bakers parents made their decision on the basis that her high standards were not at risk by her non attendance, which basically means they think she doesn't need the extra lessons.

Only time will tell which side is right, but I would hazard a guess and go with the parents, who's belief and knowledge of their daughter, far outweighs the schools over zealous adherence to its authoritarian rules.

As everyone discovers in time, one size does not fit all! After all having one of the school governors resigning over the affair cannot be good for school moral, and what kind of message does it send to future pupils and their parents?

_______------------ UPDATE ----------________

It has been said in the media and the DofE, that the extra lessons are "out of school hours" and therefore cannot be made compulsory! So it is definately a case of the school trying to impose its will on students!