davidgillon: A pair of crutches, hanging from coat hooks, reflected in a mirror (Default)

 A company that does school photographs offered two versions of the class pictures taken for a primary class in Aberdeenshire, one with the disabled kids included, one without. Including splitting a pair of twins.
 

Aberdeenshire pupils with complex needs* ‘erased’ from school photo


The council's apology and claim the school didn't know two sets of photos had been taken doesn't ring true, the only way that could have happened would have been for the staff to leave the kids alone with the photographer. Much more likely is they didn't think it through. Two different versions of what happened are in the reports across various TV and newspaper sources, one saying the set without the disabled kids was taken first, before they arrived, and the second saying afterwards. In either case the staff would have known.

The company's tweeted media response - "one of our photographers took additional images of the class group which omitted some members of the class photograph" - is a good example of how to turn a crisis into a disaster, being unable to bring itself to admit it was the disabled kids excluded, and also being an inaccessible gif of text, without, as far as I can see, any alt text. And while the apology is also on their website, the only way to get to it there is via a link in the tweet.

The Daily Mail's version of the story is particularly 'special', making the story about the company's owner, not the kids.

* C'mon Guardian, you can say the damned d-word!

 

davidgillon: Text: I really don't think you should put your hand inside the manticore, you don't know where it's been. (Don't put your hand inside the manticore)

I've just read the government 'scientific evidence' on the schools going back. Read it here.

There's some good sense; it's the first time I've seen the government admit that if you have someone clinically extremely vulnerable in the house then no one in the household should return to work. And it advises clinically vulnerable people should work from home. But it then says that if there's someone clinically vulnerable in the house the rest of the household can still go back to work. Which part of infection vector don't they understand?

But it's the advice of social distancing that beggars belief:

"We know that, unlike older children and adults, early years and primary age children cannot be expected to remain 2 metres apart from each other and staff. In deciding to bring more children back to early years and schools, we are taking this into account."

That's it. That's not 'Scientific Evidence', it barely has enough justification to count as an opinion.

(And I don't expect to find sentences that make no sense in English in 'scientific evidence', strongly suggests they didn't even proofread it).

Profile

davidgillon: A pair of crutches, hanging from coat hooks, reflected in a mirror (Default)
David Gillon

March 2025

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
9101112131415
1617 18192021 22
2324 2526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 20th, 2025 11:27 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios