A Thalidomide victim who is blind in one eye, partially deaf and can barely walk is being stripped of welfare payments – because officials say she is not ‘disabled’ enough to be out of work.

Martine White, 50, was left severely disabled after her mother took the anti-sickness drug while pregnant with her during the 1960s.

She can barely dress herself or even brush her hair, uses a wheelchair and will undergo spinal surgery later this year.

But despite her disabilities the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) has written to Mrs White saying she will lose her her £110 a week Employment and Support Allowance as she cannot prove she is unfit to work.

The former care assistant from Burnley, Lancashire, has now been served with court papers and must attend a tribunal where she will have to prove her disabilities to a judge.

In a report a DWP inspector said: ‘She is not entitled to the support component on the grounds that she does not have limited capability for work related activity.’

Today Mrs White, a widow who pays the mortgage on her adapted house herself plus council tax,  said: ‘Visually you only need to take one look at me to know there is no chance I can possibly go to work.

‘If I was to get a job I would need my carer to go with me full time. I need to be aided even to go to the toilet and I don’t think a prospective employer would even employ me knowing that I had to have a carer with me.

‘I have been having a lot of accidents lately and I keep falling over because I am unstable on my feet and go dizzy quickly,’ she said. ‘I wouldn’t be fit or safe to work. I have to have someone to get me up in the morning and help get me dressed.’

Mrs White, who needs a wheelchair to get around, has to use a stair lift, while her carer helps her make tea and brushes her hair.

‘Because of my Thalidomide, like so many others, I have arthritis,’ she said. ‘It is because of the way I have had to manipulate my body over the years in order to try and live a normal life.’

‘What anyone else finds a normal chore has killed us because we have had to use our bodies in a different way. I’m sure the judge will take one look at me and say ‘why are you here?”

Mrs White was one of 10,000 children born with disfigurements after the thalidomide anti-sickness drug was given to pregnant women in the 1950s and 1960s.

She married her late husband Michael who was also a Thalidomide victim in 1981 – the first Thalidomide couple to be married in Britain. In 2004 she underwent surgery to remove a brain tumour and retired from her job as a result.

She now requires a carer seven days a week, needs a lift to help her up the stairs and is permanently on medication to help relieve  constant pain. Trouble with her benefits began last year after Mrs White received a letter notifying her of a changeover from incapacity benefits to Employment and Support Allowance.

Just a few weeks later, in July, she received another letter saying she was no longer entitled to benefits and she must go on a work training course. The family appealed and the decision was overturned.

But last October she was re-contacted by the DWP and told once again she should not be claiming benefits. A further appeal was rejected, although she can still continue claiming £154 a week in Disability Living Allowance.

Mrs White, who has four children and five grandchildren, added: ‘I can’t sit for a long time because it is uncomfortable. I am blind in one eye, I have an artificial hip and I am waiting for spinal surgery. I am unsteady with my balance and I am deaf in both ears and need hearing aids.

‘It is like no one has looked at these medical reports from my past – I even have a full adapted automatic car which you can only get on mobility. I have no teeth either because I have had to open things with my teeth.

‘I have also got arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis – you name it. As a Thalidomide [victim] we have to use our bodies in a different way and this has set in.’

Mrs White said she cannot sit for a long period of time so would be no good in the office and cannot hear properly so a job in telecommunications would be ‘out of the question.’

Action: Mrs White has appealed against the DWP’s decision (above is her letter from HM Courts & Tribunals Service)

Mrs White said was ‘disgusted’ by the DWP’s decision and labelled its officers ‘jobsworths.’

‘If the support is taken away from my full-time carers I would have to rely on family,’ she said. ‘I have three boys and a girl. I can’t ask the boys to help me shower – it is undignified,’ she said.

Her son Carl White, a joiner, 32, said: ‘This country has too much red tape and not enough common sense. The DWP are just idiots – I just can’t understand what they are doing. It’s an insult.’

A DWP spokesman said: ‘The old incapacity benefits system condemned too many people to a life on benefits with little hope of moving back to work. Now people who can work will be given help to find a job while those who need unconditional support will get it.

‘A decision on whether someone is well enough to work is taken after consideration of all the supporting medical evidence provided by the claimant, but everybody has the right to appeal a decision if they disagree with it.’

The Government’s crackdown on disability benefits will accelerate in April, when Disability Living Allowance will gradually be replaced by the Personal Independence Payment (PIP), which is being introduced in an attempt to cut the nation’s benefits bill.

To get the PIP, people must have a face-to-face assessment, rather than simply filling out a form. In the past decade, the number of people receiving DLA has soared by more than a third, from 2.4million to 3.3million.

The cost to the taxpayer is now £13billion a year. An astonishing seven out of ten claimants – 71 per cent – have been offered the benefit for life without any checks to see if they still need it, according to the Department for Work and Pensions.

A 14-year-old boy has been arrested after a video of an assault on another pupil who desperately tried to defend himself was posted online.

The Facebook clip appears to show a teenager from Winifred Holtby School in Hull, East Yorkshire, repeatedly hitting another boy, lashing out six times with his fists and headbutting him twice.

Pupils have condemned the 27-second video taken on a school bus, which has been shared more than 200 times, with nearly 700 Facebook users expressing their anger and sadness over the attack

The boy allegedly being assaulted, who was said to suffer from learning difficulties, could be heard repeatedly saying that he did not want an argument. He did not fight back at any point of the video.

Some commenters suggested the aggressor could be assaulted himself because so many people are angered by the clip, which showed the attacker eventually being pulled away by another pupil.

Humberside Police acted after being made aware of the video, with officers going to the school to arrest a 14-year-old boy and interview him. He was bailed and has not been charged.

Mike Birkenshaw, Winifred Holtby’s deputy head for community, said staff at the school were ‘liaising with the appropriate authorities in dealing with this extremely unpleasant incident’.

He added: ‘While we will not specifically discuss this case, we do not and we will not tolerate the behaviour shown. The school’s behaviour policy clearly states our expectations for our students.

‘We will do everything we can by using the school powers that are available to us to uphold not only the reputation of the school but our local community as well.’

Sue Yardley, senior education officer for behaviour and attendance at Hull City Council, said: ‘This behaviour is absolutely unacceptable.

‘Schools have the power to discipline actions such as this, even when it occurs outside of school, in accordance with their discipline policy.

‘The council, along with its partners, works with all schools to help ensure safety for pupils both in and outside of school, as well as working with them regarding their bullying policies, social media policies and e-safety to help protect children and young people wherever possible.’

Readers, I have just read a story which  has really upset me.

An eight month old baby girl, Sanika Ahmed from Southsea in Hampshire, has Erb’s Palsy. For those who don’t know, this is paralysis of an arm, caused by nerve damage. Usually, as in Sanika’s case, this nerve damage is caused by a difficult birth.

Sanika needs surgery on her affected arm- the right- by the age of nine months- just four weeks away.

However, here’s the problem. The Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital in Middlesex has refused to treat  Sanika, because her family does not currently have the right to live in the UK, which they have applied for.

Her Bangladeshi father, Mohammed Ahmed, worked legally in the UK between 2008 and 2009. However, after his work permit expired, he stayed illegally. Sanika was born in Portsmouth last July.

The hospital says it is following NHS rules on overseas patients. They have offered to treat Sanika as a private patient, but the family cannot afford to pay.

Without the operation, Sanika risks being permanently paralysed in her right arm. A trustee of charity The Erb’s Palsy Group told the BBC that “”nine months is generally seen as the cut-off point” for the operation Sanika requires.

This piece is not about judging the Ahmeds’ decision to stay on in the UK illegally. This is a question of medical treatment which, if provided in time, would be very likely to prevent a very young child from having a serious disability for life.

I understand that the hospital is following rules. Had Sanika been an adult, I would have agreed with their decision to follow these rules in her case. However, Sanika is a baby. Her parents made the decision to remain in the UK illegally before she was even born. She did not make the decision herself. She does not know it has been made or understand it.

So, personally, I cannot see how it is fair to deny her medical treatment. This case would surely be a reasonable exception to the rule that the hospital is trying to follow.

Sanika’s parents are seeking a judicial review of the hospital’s decision.

I will be doing everything possible to raise awareness of this case. Readers, please share this post everywhere possible if you share my opinion.

I didn’t see this one when it was broadcast, readers. Did you? Would you have cleared it?

Comedian Ross Noble’s impression of “elephant man” John Merrick during an episode of Have I Got News For You did not breach editorial guidelines, the BBC Trust ruled.

A viewer had complained over the joke broadcast in June 2012, saying it was “gratuitous” and “offensive”.

However the Trust did not uphold the complaint and ruled the comic had not been mocking people with a disability.

But it said the joke was “on the margins of acceptability”.

In the segment, Noble and Have I Got News For You regular, Paul Merton, were joking about the advert, where the actors were speaking with their mouths full.

Noble joked the actors had trained at the John Merrick Academy of Drama and performed the famous line “I am not an animal” from the 1980 film The Elephant Man, in a slurred voice.

In its ruling, the Trust said the comic had been making reference to the screen portrayal of Merrick by actor John Hurt in the film rather than stereotyping people with disabilities.

“The root of the comedy lay in the commercial and, as such, was editorially justified and had a clear editorial purpose,” the BBC Trust said.

“The remarks were editorially justified because they referred to the actors in the commercial,” the Trust added.

However the committee agreed some viewers could be offended.

“The impersonation of John Merrick’s speech and physical disability, in particular, was at the margins of acceptability,” they said.

Readers, I really don’t know what’s going on in Cornwall, but I suggest that council sorts out its attitudes to disability very fast.

Another councillor in Cornwall is facing a backlash after saying there were “too many disabled children” and referring to a disabled child who had died as “it”.

Neil Burden, the lead member for Children’s Services in the council, made the comments in 2010 whilst talking to Sandra Ward, at that time the Chair of the Parent Carer Council for Cornwall. He has since apologised, acknowledging his comments were “clumsy” saying they were “meant with no malice.” His full statement is published on Cornwall Council website.

Members of the PCC were reduced to tears by Mr Burden’s remarks which related to the expense of keeping “handicapped” children alive.

Ms Ward, who is a carer herself, had complained to the then leader of the council, Alec Robertson, about the comments.

However she was shocked to receive a letter back which only served to perpetuate negative views of disabled children.

Alec Robertson’s letter suggested that there was a serious point in suggesting “remedial action” should be taken before disabled children are born and read “I understand that when using the phrases that have given you such concern, he (Councillor Burden) was trying to express a serious point; he believes that the health service should do more to prevent or reduce levels of disabilities by improved diagnoses and remedial action both before birth and in early years.”

The deputy leader of the council said in a statement that Ms Ward “recently acknowledged the work and support I have put in on behalf of disabled children in the last three years.”

However Ms Ward has called for his resignation, writing in a letter published in This Is Cornwall: “No child should ever be referred to as ‘it’ and as for there being too many of our disabled children I do not know how to respond to that, as a parent or as the chair of the PCC, as I have never heard such an awful statement in the 12 years of my daughter being born.”

Burden’s comments have recently resurfaced after Colin Brewer, another independent councillor in Cornwall, was forced to resign after saying disabled children should be “put down” as they were costing the council too much money.

Disability Cornwall has argued that a “culture of fear” is preventing more people from speaking out as they believe this could impact on them personally.

In a statement they said: “Representative organisations are also fearful of speaking up as so many are currently re-negotiating contracts for council funding and there are Council officers and members who are fearful for their own positions if they raise their heads above the parapet.

Jan Powell, Cornwall Councillor for Liskeard North, said it was easy for councillors to limit funding. She said: “They can delay the assessment process; make people go through panels for funding; not undertake the proper assessment process and close services by the back door by reducing referrals and reducing the hours and days that the service is available.

We, as a council, need a fundamental review to challenge ourselves to make sure that our decisions put people and their needs first and that our lawful policies channel funds to maximise benefit for those most needy.”

Council leader Jim Currie said “ Neil is the most committed and hard working member of the Cabinet. He works tirelessly to improve the quality of the services we provide for children and families in Cornwall and to ensure that their needs are understood and taken into account in every decision we make.”

What the Hell? Why on Earth is this person still in office?

Updated midnight 27/2: Someone has set up a Facebook page calling for him to resign. Please ‘like’ it- I just did.

Samsung has suffered a setback in its effort to win an iPhone ban based on a function making its software accessible to blind people.

The South Korean firm had sought an injunction in a German court arguing Apple’s VoiceOver screen-access facility infringed one of its patents.

However, the judge has ordered the case to be suspended pending another ruling that could invalidate Samsung’s claim.

Disability campaigners had expressed concern about the case.

Apple’s VoiceOver function is used by blind and partially-sighted people to hear a description of what the iPhone is showing by touching its screen.

The software covers text and icons including audio descriptions of the battery level and network signal. It also allows the phones to be operated via Braille-based add-ons.

Samsung had argued that Apple had failed to licence a patent it owned which describes pressing a button to make a handset describe its display. The basis for this was that VoiceOver could be switched on by triple-clicking the iPhone’s home button.

Apple declined to comment.

A statement from Samsung said: “For decades, we have heavily invested in pioneering the development of technological innovations in the mobile industry, which have been constantly reflected in our products.

“We continue to believe that Apple has infringed our patented mobile technologies, and we will continue to take the measures necessary to protect our intellectual property rights.”

‘Regrettable in the extreme’

Patent consultant Florian Muller, who was first to report the Mannheim Court’s decision, questioned Samsung’s tactics.

“If Samsung had only requested monetary compensation in this action, it would have made a much better choice than by trying to achieve, through the pursuit of an injunction, the deactivation or (more realistically) degradation of the voiceover functionality Apple provides to its German customers,” he wrote on his blog.

The British Computer Association of the Blind said it was worried such an important feature might be threatened.

“A lack of access to information is arguably the biggest potential barrier to inclusion in society for blind and partially-sighted people,” a spokesman told the BBC.

“If something as important as access to telephone technology had been blocked by the actions of one company over another the consequences for blind people everywhere would be regrettable in the extreme.”

The Wall Street Journal’s AllThingsD tech site was more damning.

“Leaving aside the ethics of asserting a patent against a feature designed to help the blind, this is unwise,” wrote John Paczkowski.

“It’s the PR equivalent of punching yourself in the face. Samsung has now identified itself as a company willing to accept the loss of accessibility for the vision-impaired as collateral damage in its battle with Apple.”

Apple and Samsung have fought a number of patent cases against each other in courts across the world.

The biggest award involved a US jury ordering Samsung to pay Apple $1.05bn (£688m) in damages. The judge in the case later rejected Apple’s call for the sum to be increased and a sales ban on some Samsung handsets.

Readers, usually I love BBC Three. This time, however, I just can’t agree with them. How can they make a documentary on this case now? Pistorius’ fame and Reeva Steenkamp’s status as a reality TV star make it easy to understand why they want to make a programme at all, but I, for one, think it is far too soon.

Reeva Steenkamp’s tragic death is nothing like Storm Sandy, which is what the article appears to be comparing it to. It makes perfect sense that documentary makers wanted to capture footage of Storm Sandy very quickly, but I, for one, can’t see why they couldn’t have waited to cover this.

BBC Three has commissioned a documentary on the death of Reeva Steenkamp, allegedly shot to death by athlete Oscar Pistorius.

The 60-minute documentary will be fronted by Rick Edwards, who presented some of the 2012 Paralympics coverage.

Edwards, who met Oscar Pistorius while he was in London for the Games, will be flying to South Africa on Saturday.

BBC Three controller Zai Bennett said the channel is “committed” to showing “bold, thought-provoking programmes”.

The production company assigned, Mentorn Media, will start filming shortly after Edwards’ arrival, while the programme is schedule to go out in March.

The independent production company has previously made specials for the channel, including a recent documentary called Superstorm Sandy: Caught on Camera.

The programme about the devastating tropical storm took about three weeks from the commissioning stage to delivery.

Bennett said “BBC Three is never afraid to tackle current affairs” for its aged 16-34 audience.

“Together with presenter Rick Edwards, I’m sure they will deliver a documentary that will bring a new angle to this ever developing news story.”

Readers, all I can say is that programmes like this are insensitive at best and dangerous at worst. I would never discourage prayer, but prayer cannot cure illness or disability- at least, not all on its own.

TV shows made in London that encourage viewers to believe they are cured of life-threatening illnesses by prayer have been condemned by charities.

Charities criticised an episode of the Miracle Hour show, on Faith World TV, during which a diabetic caller was told he was “set free” from the disease.

“It is particularly dangerous and puts his life at risk,” said African Health Policy Network head Francis Kaikumba.

UKWET, which produces the show, said it was “reviewing” its “new programmes”.

The organisation, whose full name is the UK World Evangelical Trust, said: “We are now reviewing our new programmes to make sure our standards meet good practice.”

Miracle Hour is filmed at Faith World TV’s studio in south London. It is hosted by Bishop Simon Iheanacho, who is chairman of Minority Ethnic Christian Affairs (Meca), which supports black and minority ethnic Christians and is part of ecumenical body Churches Together in England.

In an episode broadcast on 4 January, on channel 591 on the Sky platform, a diabetic caller named Bode, from Leyton in east London, telephoned the programme.

‘Set free’

Bishop Simon told him to lay his hand on his leg and said: “I cause diabetes to die in your body.

“I lose you and declare you set free from the power of diabetes.

“Thank you heavenly father for this miracle right now over your life in Jesus’s name.”

Bode was then asked to repeat the words “it is well with me”.

Mr Kaikumba said: “The clip is worrying. Bishop Simon claims to have removed the illness from the caller, insinuating he has been cured.”

“The pastor should have recommended the caller sought medical help.”

On an episode broadcast on 11 January, viewer Judith, from Ireland, called the show and was told by Bishop Simon to anoint her head with oil.

Bishop Simon told her to repeat: “Wherever this oil will touch, miracle science and wonders will be established.”

She then told Bishop Simon her children had “snakes moving about in their own bodies”.

Bishop Simon said: “You have to anoint each one of them. Whatever you declare out of your mouth, God will do it.”

‘Cursed the cancer’

Debbie Ariyo, head of Africans Unite Against Child Abuse (Afruca), said the broadcast “flags up a child safeguarding issue”.

“Someone is telling the woman she has the power to heal children she believes are possessed.”

Later in the episode, Christy from London called the show to say her sister-in-law had breast cancer.

Bishop Simon prayed for her and said: “We remove out of your body that root of cancer.”

He later said: “We cursed the cancer. It’s dead,” and later still: “Tell them not to worry about anything.”

Ms Ariyo said the broadcast “gives someone who has potential cancer false hope”.

“That’s absolutely shocking, dangerous and misleading for the patient,” she added.

After the BBC put the charities’ criticisms to UKWET last week, Bishop Simon read a statement at the start of the Miracle Hour programme broadcast on 15 February.

“If God heals you, please make sure you go to your doctor to certify that you have been healed or have been made whole and let your doctor give you a clearance on this very matter,” he said.

“Also, when it comes to your children, if your children are sick and we pray for them, that does not remove you from going to your doctor.

“Our prayer is to offer a prayer of faith but the medical people satisfy that people are truly healed.”

‘Shocking examples’

Mr Kaikumba said: “There needs to be a far reaching investigation into this pastor and TV channel.

“We intend to write a letter to Ofcom raising our concerns.”

UKWET manager the Reverend Chris Mmeregini told the BBC the Miracle Hour programme is “designed to bring encouragement to believers in Jesus Christ through the preaching and teaching of the word of God and to offer prayer of faith to help those in need”.

“The issues you have raised in our Hour of Miracles programme on 4 January and 11 January do not represent the content or intent of the programme as you have implied,” he added.

Mr Kaikumba said he has watched “similar channels” to Faith World TV and “been appalled by some of the things I’ve seen faith leaders do”.

“I’ve seen shocking examples of faith leaders advising people that they have been healed or cured as a mechanism for people to attend services and purchase items,” he added.

He called for “better scrutiny from Ofcom”.

“There needs to be a government commission and inquiry,” he said.

‘Strict rules’

A spokesman for Sky, the platform on which Miracle Hour is broadcast, said: “Any broadcaster with an appropriate Ofcom licence is free to seek distribution over the satellite platform.”

An Ofcom spokesman said: “Ofcom has very strict rules in place to protect viewers and listeners from harm and to prevent religious programmes from exploiting audiences.

“We have already issued a number of tough sanctions to channels in this area and are actively monitoring content to ensure that any breaches are appropriately dealt with.”

Joe Aldred, executive secretary of Meca said: “Ministers need to be careful when dealing with children and vulnerable adults.

“Ministers should be careful about claiming that exorcisms or healing have actually occurred unless there is corroborative evidence; the minister cannot be both judge and jury.”

Pastor Fred Annin, of Action Plus Deliverance Centre, a ministry which congregates in south London, emphasised the important role faith can play “in boosting morale” for “helping people through illness”.

“Faith lifts people up when they’re down but should never push them down more,” he added.

“Prayer can not bring our health back when we ignore medicine.”

Hannah Phillips lost count of the times her son James was excluded from primary school for disruptive behaviour. There were daily phone calls from staff, often asking her to take him home, and his three older siblings were fed up with being called out of class to deal with him. He was frequently placed in isolation, away from the classroom, and excluded from school trips and activities, says Phillips.

James has Down’s syndrome and moderate learning difficulties. So what his teachers classed as disruptive behaviour, was actually “general excitement and joie de vivre”, says his mother. With the right kind of help, she believes he could have progressed well in a mainstream school. But she was disappointed by the support that was offered. “The attitude seemed to be: ‘We don’t really want him here, but we have to take him because the education system says we have to take children with special needs.'”

Julie Sheppard also found herself making frequent trips to her school to collect her son Logan – who has autistic spectrum disorders – because staff said his behaviour was unmanageable.For Sheppard, the multiple trips back and forth to the school became too much. “I remember ringing my mum in tears, saying: ‘I can’t keep doing this’,” she says.

There are clear guidelines for schools, set out by the Department for Education, about school exclusions. A child can only be legally excluded for disciplinary reasons and headteachers must tell parents and carers formally, in writing, why their child has been excluded and for how long.

But new research published today by the charity Contact A Family suggests that some schools are regularly making unlawful exclusions. The charity’s survey of over 400 families of children with disabilities or additional needs found that 22% are illegally excluded once a week and 15% every day (for part of the day). More than 60% of the parents have been told that their child has been put on a part-time timetable – something that can be appropriate for short periods of time (for instance, when a child is returning to school after an illness) but should not continue indefinitely. While the majority of children experiencing illegal exclusions are in mainstream schools, around 20% are in special schools. The most common reasons given for exclusion are that the school doesn’t have enough support staff or that the child is “having a bad day”.

Contact A Family is calling for schools to have better access to specialist support services, including amendments to the children and families bill, that would help young people with disabilities and additional needs to access educational support more easily; and more guidance on when it is appropriate to agree a part-time timetable for children with disabilities and special needs. The charity also wants schools found to be illegally excluding children to automatically receive a grading of “inadequate” from Ofsted.

The report echoes the findings of an inquiry carried out by the Children’s Commissioner last year, which found that children with disabilities and additional needs were among those most likely to be affected by illegal exclusions. Next month, it will publish the findings of a second year of more in-depth research on the issue.

The findings of both reports come as no surprise to Marie Walters. Her son Harry, who has an autism spectrum disorder, was excluded from his mainstream primary school so many times, she became “confused” about when she should send him to school and when not. Sanctions were inconsistent, with only some formally recorded by the school, she claims. “Sometimes he would be fully excluded for something that seemed incredibly minor. And I’d get calls at extreme times of the day, like 8.30 in the evening saying: ‘He can’t come in tomorrow.'”

As Walters found, the impact on the child can be devastating. “I had to take Harry to see a counsellor because he started smashing his head against the wall. He didn’t know if he was coming or going, or whether he even had a school any more.”

Many children – up to 53%, according to Contact A Family’s survey – fall behind with schoolwork because of these illegal exclusions. During the year-long period when he was frequently excluded from school James “went backwards”, says Phillips.

Families are affected too. Being constantly “on call” to collect a child can make it difficult for parents to hold down a job. And this is particularly significant for parents of children with disabilities or special needs who, according to research carried out by the Children’s Society and others, are already at greater risk of being in poverty. “I couldn’t work, I couldn’t go out anywhere,” says Phillips. She took a part-time job as a lunchtime supervisor at her son’s school just so that she could be on hand to deal with any problems. But she says the stress led to her having a breakdown. Walters, too, began suffering from depression, which she believes was triggered by her son’s problems at school.

For many parents – around two thirds, according to Contact A Family’s research – the solution is often to take their child out of the school. Both Harry, 12, and James, 10, are now in special schools.

For Sheppard, the turning point came when she found Logan sat in the school reception area with his older brother while the rest of the school was enjoying a Christmas party. “My son was clearly not welcome. It was the last straw. I emptied the children’s lockers and took them home.”

Logan, now nine, is now settled at another mainstream primary school, where staff are, says Sheppard, more comfortable dealing with children with complex needs and “manage the behaviour before it happens”. This comes at a cost: the school is not walking distance from the family home, which means a £12 taxi fare some days.

So why are some schools not following guidelines on exclusions? According to Srabani Sen, chief executive of Contact A Family, many don’t realise that asking parents to collect a child at lunchtime to “cool off”, or to keep them at home for a few days, actually counts as exclusion.

Some parents are afraid to challenge illegal exclusions as they are worried about the impact on their child’s school record. Walters admits she was initially pleased that Harry’s school didn’t seem to be formally recording all his exclusions. “All I could think of was that it could affect his chances of getting into a good secondary school,” she says.

Lack of training and support could also have a part to play, says Sen. “For example, it could be that some kids, depending on their behavioural issues, can’t deal with eye contact. Now, if a teacher or person working with these children understood that, it could mean that they could prevent things escalating to the point where the person feels that they need to exclude a child.”

The Children’s Commissioner for England, Maggie Atkinson, agrees. “Following last year’s report, we said very clearly that there was a gap in the knowledge of the children’s workforce in what ordinary child development should look like and what child development looks like if there is a delay or physical condition. We made a very clear recommendation that both in terms of teacher training and, when you are a teacher, the training you continue to have, should actually ensure you understand what brain development looks like, what social development looks like and what emotional difficulties look like.”

Since the Children’s Commissioner’s report was published last year, the DfE has published updated statutory guidance on school exclusion, which states that schools cannot exclude children because they feel they don’t have the resources to deal with them or because they believe the child needs to “cool off”. It specifies that “any exclusion of a pupil, even for short periods of time, must be formally recorded”.

But what is not clear is who is policing the issue. While the DfE’s guidance states that schools must explain to parents how they can contest an exclusion – which could be, depending on the type of school, via the local authority or, in the case of academies, the governing body – some of the parents the Guardian spoke to said their complaints were largely ignored. The DfE guidance does not mention any appeals process in cases that are not fixed-term or permanent exclusions.

There appear to be no sanctions against schools that impose illegal exclusions. Ofsted says it does not currently have any plans to amend the inspection framework so that schools found to be illegally excluding children would be downgraded. A spokeswoman said inspectors already take into account rates and patterns of exclusion.

Sen says the blame should not be placed entirely on schools. “It’s not about shaking a stick at schools – it’s about saying: ‘Look, we need to work together to make sure that these kids get the education they need and deserve.’ Kids have a right to be educated and that right is currently being denied to far too many because of these illegal exclusions. Ultimately this should not be happening and it really needs to stop – now.”