Hardliners’ voices gain prominence in schools Covid debate

Group has opposed school closures at all costs instead of asking pertinent questions, writes Martyn Mclaughlin

It has been a little over six months since I last wrote about Us For Them, a vocal parents group forged during the early days of the pandemic.

In the time since, its membership has quadrupled, expanding beyond the fringes of social media to enjoy media coverage so wide - spread that it is now routinely pre - sented as a leading voice of concerned families across S cotland.

S ome things, however, have not changed. At least some members of the group are prone to spreading harmful misinformation. One of its organisers has argued that the use of face coverings of schools is not just “ineffective”, but “invasive”.

This strand is explored further on Us For Them's website which, on a page headlined "Use Of Face Masks & Face Covering, A Summary Of The Science”, links to articles with headlines including “masks are neither effective nor safe”, “mask hysteria: are we going to far” and “face masks pose serious risks to healthy individuals”.

It hardly needs saying that such obser vations are entirely without credibilit y. And this attracts other like -minded people whose comments on the group’s Face - book page – which is open for all to comment on – are enough to make anyone feel that the standard of discourse is as depressing as it is concerning.

Us For Them, of course, is not the only parental campaign group with misgivings about the pandemic’s impact on education, but it is the one which shouts the loudest. As a consequence, it is increasingly platformed as a rep - resentative body.

It is easy to understand why this should be the case, given they are a group with upwards of 12,000 members and a highly visible and active social media presence.

But it is wor th remembering there are reasons why it has achieved such prominence. Us For Them is billed as a grassroots parental group. It is also, however, a political lobbying organisation. Its chapter in S cotland has made multiple submissions to Holyrood’s education and skills committee, and its PR operations have been handled by a former director of communications for the S cottish Conser vatives.

Of course, the group can fight its battles as it sees fit, and enlist who it wants to help. Yet if it wishes to play a central role in the debate over how Scotland’s education system is responding to an unprecedented public health crisis – particularly when some of its more prominent members happen to be elected representatives – it would serve the public interest well to better understand its operations. For example, who is paying for its professional advice and services, and which individual or entity is the ultimate beneficiary of the several thousand pounds that have been pledged so far via a series of crowdfunding campaigns?

What purpose was ser ved by one of Us For Them’s co -founders, Michelle Kingsley – a former corporate lawyer – applying to the Intellectual Proper t y Office to trademark the group’s name for political lobbying activities?

No one is disputing that the majorit y of Us For Them’s members are ordinar y parents who are upset, scared, and confused by what is happening, or that the fears they have for their children are anything but genuine. But for such a well- drilled organisation, it has vehemently opposed school closures at all costs, instead of