Canopus

There are several catches to it in practice. I will expose a few of them by clarifying what the key features of the new support package really mean. More flexible access to public examinations and exam centres for home educated children, so their parents no longer have to rely on ad hoc arrangements with schools or colleges that can be a long way from home Only the subjects and exams normally available to students who attend school full time will be available for HE children. Most GCSEs have a considerable coursework content which means that it is highly likely that HE children enrolled to take GCSEs at state schools will have to attend full time in Y11 in order to complete their coursework. Will schools allow HE children below Y11 to take GCSE exams or will that be unfair on those who attend full time? It is highly unlikely that state schools will offer all examination IGCSEs to HE children unless they also offer them to students who attend full time. The main reason for this, apart from NC coursework requirements, is the extra admin duties and hassle involved with offering two types of exams. More tailored support for home educated children with special educational needs Exactly what support will be available for which types of SEN? Have any HE parents of children with SEN and the children themselves been asked by the LA what support and services they need AFTER embarking on HE? Are existing SEN support groups and sources of information outside of the school system and LA control insufficient in any way? Better support for home educated young people who want to go to college That will be useful in theory but it remains to be seen how it will pan out in practice? Concerns have circulated in the HE community that colleges might tighten admissions criteria for HE children - such as having to have 5 GCSEs if the facilities to take them at state schools becomes widespread, even if HE children effectively have to attend full time during Y11 to do the coursewok. Improved access to music lessons, school libraries, work experience, sports and other specialist facilities in schools and colleges Sounds very nice but what it really means are HE children attending the same lessons with students who attend school full time. See the flexi-schooling comment for more information. Another question is whether HE children will be allowed to participate in lessons for year groups above or below them that reflect their abilities, or will they only be allowed to participate in lessons for their year group? A more sensible move would be to allow HE children to access certain school facilities during evenings and weekends but this raises the issue of staff having to be employed (on overtime pay?) during these periods to offer services. A commitment from the Government to look at arrangements for flexi-schooling, so that home educated children can have the option to attend school on a part-time basis. The difficulties of imposing flexi-schooling are those associated with timetabling more than anything else. Flexi-schooled children who only attend lessons for a few subjects often have to go to school almost every day of the week even if it is just for an hour or so due to 'fragmented' timetables where the lessons they wish to attend are spread throughout the week rather than concentrated in a day. If a school has around 100 flexi-schooled children in different year groups who require lessons in different subjects then creating a timetable with a low degree of 'fragmentation' is next to impossible.

Independent schools can expel students for whatever reasons they like and there is very little in the way of facilities to appeal against the expulsion. It seems like the more parents pay for education the fewer rights they have to appeal when things go wrong. I once encountered a 15 year old with AS who was expelled from an independent school half way through Y11 and had to take his GCSEs at a state school. It was a difficult move because the school used different exam boards for some subjects. He lost some GCSEs because the school didn't offer them and offered double science instead of separate sciences. He also had to resit his maths GCSE despite already having an A grade.

Earlier this year I mentioned potential cutbacks in SEN services and it appears that they are now taking place. Next year the financial situation will be worse and I expect to see swingeing cuts in public spending and approximately 10% of current education, NHS, and council staff made redundant. Even police forces are having to sack officers despite rising levels of crime.

Are schools allowed to charge more than the cover price for a damaged or destroyed book?

It is probably safe to say that most people, regardless of what country they live in, follow the same religion their parents and family follows, or the most common and dominating religion of the country they live in. This is the result of the natural desire most people have to fit in and assimilate rather than go in their own direction. People with AS tend to be questioning types and are more likely to question the norm or the culture of a society or their family that most NT people accept as the way things are. Now, are kids with AS more likely to follow a different religion from that of their parents compared with NT kids? Remember that kids are exposed to a variety of different religions in RE lessons at school and may have classmates who follow a variety of religions. Therefore, a greater potential exists for ANY kid to choose a religion different from that of their parents compared with the days when schools only taught Christianity.

There are countless Americans opposed to this extradition. I previously mentioned that the British government is almost certainly under pressure by the US government to extradite Gary McKinnon or else face serious repercussions in the future - just like school playground style bullying.

Yes. That is how the British system of justice works. Laws are made and the maximum penalty is detailed within them. That is not how the British system of justice works. Courtroom judges and the Home Secretary are unable to dish out whatever penalties and punishments they wish; they have to implement only those contained within the law. You have to bear in mind that this is a very unusual legal case. We have somebody threatened with a (draconian) punishment that was not enshrined in the law at the time the crime was committed and it is being imposed by a foreign nation despite Britain having laws to prosecute him that were in force long before the crime was committed. Perhaps if Gary McKinnon was prosecuted under the Computer Misuse Act at the outset before his AS was discovered, and subsequently entered the equation, then it could have saved a lot of heartache for everyone. Deciding to extradite a British citizen with a legal case dragging on for years is bound to open up a large can of worms.

The official consequences of his actions are a maximum of 5 years in a British prison. Extradition is a hidden extra being used very dishonestly because the crimes were committed before the legislation came into force.

My statement of SEN from 1989 mentioned that my special needs must be taken into account by the residential school I attended and adjustments made where necessary. What happened was that I ended up being treated very badly and unjustly by both the staff and students. This has imprinted a message on my mind that any mention of taking into account special needs and making adjustments are only words until the measures are actually delivered in practice. This smacks of naivety. It is sensible to make a worst case analysis of this situation. It is probably safe to say that the moment Gary McKinnon leaves British soil, he is in the hands of the Yanks and the British government will have no say over what happens next. I am concerned. Read above about making a worst case analysis.

Because American top security prisons are much nastier and more violent places than their British counterparts. The differences between British and American culture and lifestyle will make life more difficult for a British citizen in an American prison, and even more so for one with AS. If one is to survive then they will have to understand American street slang and non-verbal communication. A possible analogy is like a British citizen with no knowledge of Arabic being imprisoned in Libya where all communication with the staff and inmates is in Arabic. Break a rule and get shouted at in a language you can't understand a word of. Break another rule and this time get punched up by an inmate.

I'm talking about a professional, not a 4 year old! The decision has been made to prosecute. The Computer Misuse Act applies to hacking foreign computers from the UK. It intrigues me why AS has been promoted into a serious matter in this legal case. That's why I raised the question that Gary McKinnon's lawyers might know something important that we don't know. There is also the question whether Gary McKinnon could ever hope to survive for any length of time in a top security US prison or whether it is a strong certainty that he will be killed by other inmates.

I was discussing the Gary McKinnon affair with a lawyer who specialises in international law. He told me that he is 99.99999% convinced that the Israeli government, and not the US government, are the ones demanding the extradition. I asked the lawyer to explain this in more detail and his reply was that although he does not have accurate information about exactly what computers Gary McKinnon hacked into and what data he was able to access or corrupt, he thinks that some of the data concerned Israel and either included material of a top secret nature or that which will cause serious embarrassment to Israel, and Israel somehow found out about the hacking. Although the lawyer is no expert on the technicalities of hacking computers, he knows that plenty of computers owned by the US government and military contain top secret data about Israel. Under various international agreements, the Israeli government has access to computers owned by the US government and military, and vice versa for the US government. The decision whether to prosecute a hacker is a dilemma for the owners of a computer that has been hacked into. The lawyer stated it is quite commonplace for hacking to go unreported and the hacker to be let off scot free simply in order to avoid potential embarrassment that a certain organisation's computer security is weak. There have even been cases where a discovered hacker has been sent a strongly worded letter saying that the organisation will drop all charges on the condition that the hacker signs and returns a form declaring they will not disseminate any data they have accessed, and keep their trap shut about the hacking incident. If they publicise the hacking incident then the organisation will prosecute as it will have nothing to lose and everything to gain. The lawyer thinks that it is possible that the US government would either have let Gary McKinnon off or pressed for the British government to prosecute him under the Computer Misuse Act if he had hacked into purely American computers, because in reality he is a curious lone wolf rather than involved in organised terrorism. If however, another foreign power such as Israel enters the equation then it becomes a completely different story, and the lawyer thinks that the government of Israel considers Gary McKinnon to be a serious danger to their country, so are pressing for the extradition.

60 years is a draconian sentence for just about any crime so I can see good reason why anybody destined for such a sentence would fight it until the bitter end, especially if it's an 'unofficial' sentence and a far less extreme official sentence exists. Even so, 5 years in a British prison is quite a hefty sentence and far from a slap on the wrist, so implying that Gary McKinnon is getting off lightly by taking this sentence as opposed to extradition is unjustified. There certainly are people who believe that a criminal should take whatever punishment they are given even if it is not set out in the law at the time the crime was committed. I do not subscribe to this because it would result in very rough justice. Do you have first hand information of EXACTLY what Gary McKinnon did or are you relying on possibly distorted information from the mainstream media?

As I have previously stated, I am wondering if Gary McKinnon's lawyers know something concerning the AS that we don't which has contributed to much of the media coverage making an issue of the AS. If AS can be used as a defence then it will relate to American law rather than British law. If his lawyers knew that AS was absolutely no defence whatsoever then they would almost certainly have cut it out of the whole affair as being an irrelevant matter, and it would have received far less media coverage. I personally think that AS has been given a disproportionate amount of media coverage and strength in opposing the extradition compared with the timing which cannot be disputed by anyone.

Rubbish. Hacking into foreign military computers clearly and squarely violates the Computer Misuse Act and carries a maximum sentence of 5 years behind bars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Misuse_Act_1990 Do you really think a 5 year prison sentence is 'nothing important'?

Under UK law, yes. It is possible to be prosecuted for other crimes carried out as the result of hacking such as theft and fraud. Say for example, a hacker hacked into the computer of a bank and transferred money from your account into his own, then he will be prosecuted for both hacking and theft. I believe it is possible to be prosecuted for criminal damage for deleting or corrupting files but proof of this must be in a format that will stand up in court. I'm not dismissing his crime as nothing important. I'm quite happy, along with millions of other people in the UK and abroad who oppose his extradition, for Gary McKinnon to be prosecuted and jailed in Britain under the Computer Misuse Act. I would find it very questionable if he were let off scot free.

I personally don't see what was wrong with prosecuting Gary McKinnon in the UK under the Computer Misuse Act BEFORE he had his diagnosis of AS. If that had happened then he would have received a few articles in the papers back then and would now have faded into obscurity. Anybody remember Paul Bedworth? Instead what has resulted from a decision to extradite him is a 7 year long legal wrangle; a diagnosis of AS; bringing AS into the picture - for the better or the worse of anyone; and high profile media coverage almost promoting him to a celebrity status. Coming out with statements like "he shouldn't have broken the law" is disingenious because at the time NOBODY could have forseen the long term consequences. Anybody suggesting a future scenario similar to the Gary McKinnon affair back in 2001 would almost certainly have been labelled a paranoid nutter. The accepted consensus back then was that a hacker would be prosecuted under the Computer Misuse Act unless there were changes in the law and the hacking took place AFTER the law was changed.

Another thing that intrigues me is why the Daily Mail is supporting Gary McKinnon when it is generally a newspaper that is tough on crime. I could understand a liberal newspaper such as the Indepedent screaming that he was only being curious and deserves a slap on the wrist, but it seems a bold move for the Daily Mail unless there is some underlying motive.

Paranoia today often turns out to be reality tomorrow. I was discussing the Gary McKinnon affair with my boss at work (who I believe is NT) and he mentioned that it isn't a straightforward prosecution and that there is something very sinister and suspicious surrounding it. He definitely thinks that the US government is trying to make a statement and it intrigues him why AS has become such a prominent issue as he agrees with me that timing is the more powerful defence. Another concern is how much money this 7 year long legal wrangle has cost the US taxpayer and whether they are happy to see what he considers to be a petty criminal jailed for 60 years at THEIR expense. I am wondering if there is some obscure legislation in the US penal system that exempts people with AS and certain disabilities from harsh punishments, such as 60 years in a supermax, and Gary McKinnon's lawyers know something about this. My experience of things are that most people only like questions than can be answered and have a tendency to want to brush unanswerable questions under the carpet.

There's always the possibility that the US government is trying to kill two birds with one stone. Capturing a hacker that has AS was almost certainly an unexpected find by the US government as no evidence exists to suggest otherwise. It may also be a bonus for them, so they are taking advantage of the situation. Many unanswered questions surround the Gary McKinnon affair. His lawyers almost certainly know crucial stuff that is not in the public domain.

Something strange surrounds the whole Gary McKinnon affair. Is there a reason why the case lingered on for 7 solid years? Is there a reason why the US government is so determined to extradite somebody who, quite frankly, is a harmless but curious lone wolf as opposed to somebody with malicious intent such as those involved in organised international terrorism? Has Gary McKinnon been deliberately hand picked for a reason whilst other hackers have been let off scot free by a US government who chooses not to pursue them? Has his diagnosis of AS made the US government even more determined to extradite him than if he wasn't diagnosed or was NT? Is the US government taking advantage of his diagnosis of AS to tarnish the image of people with AS in the minds of the public by associating them with hackers? These questions may never be answered.

I'm just as intrigued as you are. I'm wondering if Gary Mckinnon's lawyers know something we don't... Personally I regard the timing of the crime and imposition of the extradition treaty a much stronger defence than having AS. Has ANYBODY ever been prosecuted under a law imposed AFTER the crime had taken place?

UK legislation relating to hacking does not distinguish between real working systems or decoys known only by their owner to be decoys. A reputable networks specialist told me that he is 99.9% convinced that the computers Gary McKinnon hacked into were decoys and the whole Gary McKinnon affair was deliberately orchestrated by the US government years in advance. The same networks specialist also stated that if Gary McKinnon had hacked into real working systems then the US government would almost certainly have kept very quiet about it then tightened up security, unless something happened which was clearly obvious to the general public. I'm convinced that the masses of media coverage of Gary McKinnon is the result of the extradition to the US and NOT his AS. He would have got almost as much media coverage if he were NT simply because extradition is a highly controversial, or possibly unpopular, penalty with the general public. The NAS would almost certainly have stepped in if Gary McKinnon was destined to be prosecuted and imprisoned in Britain rather than extradited, but I severely doubt that he would have got anywhere as much media coverage, and even less likely to get support from the media or politicians.

Has it ever occurred to you that the computer systems that Gary McKinnon hacked into could have been decoys, rather than real working systems, deliberately installed as a trap for hackers? Not many people seem to have mentioned this possibility.

Now here's an interesting question to all of those who support the extradition. If a hacker hacked into computers in five different countries simultaneously (or at least within a few hours of each other) and the governments of all five countries wanted to extradite him and incarcerate him in their own jails, then which country should take priority? Although it will be possible to stand trial in five different countries, it is only possible to be incarcerated in one place.