The x/twitter account of “Old Andrew,” posted criticism of me yesterday. Here is a response, posted here as I do not pay for a blue tick on the social network, so cannot post at length there, as he did.
“Old Andrew’s” post is here (and at the bottom of this piece).
https://twitter.com/oldandrewuk/status/1715031195895902512
Below is my response:
It feels a bit strange responding in some detail to an anonymous twitter account, but here goes. You’ve mentioned my “reporting” – your quotes – as including second-hand accusations, innuendo, possibly conspiracy. This in itself ironically feels a bit like innuendo, in its non-specificity. But the prompt for this latest twitter flurry was a thread I posted last week which was entirely factual. This was prompted by my reading, in published accounts for Mr Bennett’s company Anvil, that an “unlawful” dividend payment had been made; tweets on researchED’s accounts, and some factual background about researchED.
As I say, this was factual. I cannot police reactions to it – if journalists were expected to police reaction to all their stories on social media, there would be no journalism. For what it’s worth, from what I could see the longest-running argument following the thread seemed to be a dispute, among people some of them seemingly with experience of accountancy, around the meaning and context of the word “unlawful,” in an accounting setting. I didn’t wade into it.
You mentioned that Mr Bennett does not respond to my questions because it’s me. Of course, I’ve figured that out for myself. But I think you misunderstand journalism: he’s a public figure, with a lot of public influence in part because of his work for this government. He’s running a high-profile education organisation, lavishly praised by at least one of this government’s ministers. My initial investigations into researchED were prompted after I went to pay for a ticket for the annual conference, saw that I was being asked whether I’d like to consider a donation, and was puzzled as to why so little information was available on the website. Why was there no Companies House or Charity Commission number? Why was there no corporate information, so I could at least get some sense of where the money went?
You may want to try to argue that even to ask those questions is “innuendo”. He’s just a good guy fulfilling a valuable public service, so back off. But it’s a question about basic transparency. Of course, Mr Bennett is entitled to ignore me, because he doesn’t like me. But not providing this information, and this response from you, does look a bit like he’s above scrutiny in public. Because he’s a nice guy, working hard, or you agree with him. Or he doesn’t need to answer any questions on this, because of the person asking them. I should just be nicer to him - though I don’t think I was impolite, in my requests for information - and then he might do me the “favour” of providing me some information.
It’s like a reporter in a press conference asking a public figure a question. They can choose not answer it, because it’s come from a “mean person”, but if the questions are legitimate, why not just provide the answers? I do quote people responding to my pieces at length. But again, entirely up to him.
So I don’t think asking Mr Bennett questions is asking some person on high to do me a “favour”. It’s up to him whether or not he wants to answer. These strike me as legitimate public interest questions, whether or not you like me or my scrutiny of the organisation. If he had chosen to post some details, for example, on researchED’s website, about the set-up, then fine. But, even after I had asked, and after some directors had resigned mentioning the move away from the organisation seeking charitable status, there was nothing.
Your point about naming a member of his family, I’m afraid to say, is bizarre. This person is the other director and shareholder of the company that I was reporting about – a firm that I’ve been interested in since it was one of only a handful to win what for it was quite a large government contract. That person was named because she was one of two beneficiaries of the latest dividend payment, which the story was about. It’s all on the public record. I would report the name of whoever the other person was, because it's public information. Should I not do so because this person is a family member? (Which I didn’t know for sure in any case).
Just re your point about “trolls,” you have happily described anyone who has been blocked by Mr Bennett as a “troll”. This includes experienced teachers, academics and parents. Of course, some may have crossed a line – I do not spend enough time watching twitter to know – but you’ve put all of them in that category. However, it seems some have just disagreed with Mr Bennett’s tone, or views, or both. It seems you are quite close to libel yourself, here, in suggesting they are all malicious, with the word “troll”, which may also imply anonymity, when many are not anonymous.
As a teacher, is this blanket attack on people who take a different perspective really behaviour you want to model for your students? Again, I’m not saying some behaviour has not been wrong. But you’ve put everyone blocked by Mr Bennett in that category.
A few months ago, Mr Bennett tweeted out a Parliamentary speech by a teenager, on exams, and described it, unprompted, as “terrible”. If the boot had been on the other foot, and a speech by Mr Bennett had been described in this way after he’d tweeted it, he would no doubt have blocked that person, and you’d be describing the person as a “troll”. I understand that you want to stick up for your mate, and you agree with his ideas. But you can’t have it both ways.
Mr Bennett, of course, generates a lot of controversy in part because of his approach on twitter, which perhaps in contrast to some of his other media work, or even his face-to-face interactions with people, can be demeaning to alternative approaches and points of view. Many people question whether that is appropriate, in a figure who is, after all, contracted to and advising government on how young people should behave. There are also questions about whether the government’s approach itself on school behaviour policies, which you and he seem to back, is unbalanced. Where, for example, are the qualified psychologists with influence over it? Where are the fair and in-the-round consideration of the detailed perspectives of young people on the end of these policies? Too often, your side just seems to be screaming at people who disagree that they don’t know what they are talking about: they are just wrong.
Finally, just re your point about what and who I investigate, I can’t be dictated to on that, can I? You don’t like what I do, but you’d no doubt be happy if it was the other side of the argument I was investigating, rather than this one, which of course wields all the power because of its endorsement by this government. So I will continue to ask questions and investigate.
“Old Andrew’s” original post was here
I think the problem here is that you don't realise that what you are doing comes across as trolling. Your "reporting" includes second-hand accusations; innuendo, and sometimes what seems to be conspiracy theory. Then the trolls move in on your target and bombard them with abuse and accusations about which you say nothing even though they go far beyond anything your reports could ever justify. Now that's your choice. You've got to make a living and if that's how you want to do it then that's between you and your conscience. But it's absolutely insufferable for you to then act like people who want nothing to do with you are trying to avoid questioning and have something to hide. People avoid you because of you. It matters how you conduct yourself and who you bring with you. People are not forthcoming when you ask them questions because it appears that you are asking in the hope that you'll learn something you can use to punish them. If you want Tom to answer your questions, how about acting like a reasonable human being? Block all those trolls who have been libelling him continually since your story. Apologise to him for naming a member of his family on a twitter thread read by those trolls. Show you are interested in journalism, not attacking those who disagree with you, by investigating some of the people on your side of the ideological fence in the same way. And most of all, when you are quizzing people about their hobbies or aspects of their job that they cannot easily discuss in public, ask them like you were asking them to do you a favour (which you are), not like they owe you an answer or even the time of day.