I have actually been quite hesitant to mention the subject previously, as I genuinely do not wish to be wrongly labelled as some sort of an anti-Christian, of which I most certainly am not. In fact it’s my opinion that creationists are far from what most everyday Christians consider themselves to be. In this subject I am of course (as far as I am aware) speaking the main sponsorship of academies that force-feeds the idea onto our nations children – the Emmanuel schools foundation.

Now, I have absolutely no problem with people thinking whatever they want. You hate homosexuals? Fine. You think black people are so as a punishment and therefore all black people are immoral? Absolutely wrong, but you may think whatever you wish to think. You can even think that lizards from space are and always have ruled the earth (as some people actually do!). However, when you bring your views into schools and actually obtain financial funding for them from OUR TAX money, then something has surely gone wrong in system. And by the way, the “values” being taught aren’t what we all consider to be Christian, (generally love, peace and acceptance) but the creationist Old Testament version. You only have to look at McQuoids homophobic statements both in blog news and on my guest book to figure out what kind of “values” he up holds. All this, added with the ultimate power that sponsors are given, also leads the way for exploitation in a biased selection of teachers based upon faith. To, very vaguely back this up, out of the 4 deputy heads, the one that came from my previous school and the only non-Christian was the only deputy not to conduct any assemblies. Surely his role was merely a title, not really having the same power as the other simply because he hadn’t the same faith.  

I invite any questions on the matter, as being a previous student I actually think that I have one of the best-informed perspectives on the matter. I will start by answering (or at least correcting) some common conceptions.

Q. Well, If you don’t wish to attend (morning prayer and bible study), your parents can give their consent against it, right?

A. Well, legally yes. I actually tried the same option with a letter from my mother and contact details. Every time I did I was told to “consider my actions”. Eventually it was nearing the end of term and my exams were coming up. I simply gave up. How often do you expect a 12-year-old child to keep trying?

Q. Do you really have to carry bibles around with you?

A. No! And as far as I am aware nobody on the anti-academy campaign has said so!

• Homophobic

"The bible states clearly that homosexuality is agaisnt God's design; I would indicate that clearly to young folk." - Nigel McQuoid.

So, really Nigel, what you mean is:

“I hate gays (because a book tells me so), and id tell young people to hate gays too”

Is this really the influence we want in our state schools? I mean, by no means should teachers encourage pupils to be gay (not that they would), but certainly it is far worst to teach our children to hate people based on their sexuality (and it will eventually lead to hate, even if you are simply just indicating what the bible preaches). To have a state paid man in a position of power of which McQuoid is in and having such sheer intolerance towards a group of people is surely bordering on the illegal, never mind the down right immoral.

• Corruption with the government

 "In response to your query...much depends on which aspects of science are being taught at the time inspectors visit the school" - David Bell, Cheif OFSTED inspector.

Again, I must translate past the bullshit:

“Just pretend not to teach creationism in science lessons, and our government paid officials wont say anything”

More than this though, if you actually observe who has conducted the ofsted reports for both the kings and Emmanuel academies, Mr Andrew Bennett, he has given each great results. Is it not odd that he has conducted inspections for both academies? Why have six sponsors of academies been knighted so far? Is there a closer link between Vardy and Blair that the press hasn’t reported, as after all they both did attend the same school? What, you may be wondering, has any of this got do with children’s education? Let me ask you this, as parent, who would you want teaching your children? Trustful, respectable and genuine people? Or sleazy manipulators who ultimately have their own agendas and thus don’t really care about our children’s factual education? As a soon to be dad, I know beyond doubt which I prefer. However, they do have the advantage of beautiful modern buildings (paid for and maintained by the tax payer) and state of the art facilities (paid for and maintained by the tax payer). How can parents not be attracted to the building? They must try and see the sleaze within the core.

• Wants to beat children

 “We await with interest the developments surrounding the current debate on corporal punishment in the belief that, properly regulated and administered, it has the support of a large majority of parents. We totally abhor the legalisation of beating in rage…” – Nigel McQuoid.

The legislation in question (of beating in rage) basically makes it illegal to beat your kids to a harmful degree. A degree, for example, which may put them in hospital. Now, I’m fine with modern Christians, who (in honesty are selective with what they choose to believe from the bible) consider physical punishment for their kids as a light smack. But there must be some understand that these “Christians” aren’t like normal everyday Christians, but old fashioned. Try thousands of years old fashioned. This subject however, is one, which highlights with the utmost clarity why these people are a danger. Brain washing our children is one thing, but openly admitting they want to beat them is far from fuzzy friendly Christian. For more evidence you must only consider the bible on this matter.

• Out of touch

  "We refute the insidious links drawn between poverty and crime, between unemployment and anti-social behaviour. Far more real are the evidences that link the rise in criminal and anti-social activity with the demise in Christian social responsibility..." - Nigel McQuoid

Leaving aside the fact that McQuoid is saying this without any sociological evidence I actually find this quite offensive. Since when has religion – specifically the Christian one – been a requirement for a socially responsibly society? Can one not cherish and embrace the values required for a decent society without subscribing to a religion?