UKIP row school banned pupils from voting for party in mock election saying it is ‘racist’

The Express is reporting that a school which hit the headlines after teachers called in the police to interrogate a boy who accessed the UKIP website had previously banned pupils from voting for the party in a mock election.

Teachers at Wildern School told students they were not allowed to cast votes for UKIP in a school-wide mock General Election, held before the real vote in May last year, because the party is ‘racist’, according to one furious parent…

In a statement, the school said teachers only had a limited time in which to hold the mock General Election, and so the debate had only encompassed the three biggest political parties at the time. 

But one enraged father, whose child took part in the debate, said youngsters had been told by teachers they could not cast votes for UKIP because the party was considered racist…

He said: “The school held a mock General Election last May for pupils. In this mock election I was shocked to hear that pupils were not allowed to vote for UKIP as it was deemed a racist party.

“There is clearly a political agenda within the school, whereas I don’t believe children should be given biased information. They should have the opportunity to form their own minds up with regards to political feelings. 

“The school should be politically neutral as far as I am concerned.” 

…In an email asked Wildern headteacher Marie-Louise Litton whether the school had a policy, official or otherwise, which designated UKIP racist and whether teachers were asked to actively discourage pupils from researching, volunteering for or even discussing the party. 

In a statement she replied: “Last year Wildern School held mock elections, for all of its students to experience what it feels like to vote. 

“As there was only limited time available for the exercise, students spent one lesson analysing the main policies of the three largest political parties at that time. 

“The school has a politically neutral approach and encourages students to engage with the political process. 

“The mock election took place nearly a year ago and this is the first time the school has been made aware of any concerns.” 

More at: UKIP row school BANNED pupils from voting for party in mock election saying it is ‘RACIST’


So we’re are left here, a long tim after the event, with what looks like a lot of digging from the paper and a case of ‘he said’ versus ‘she said’.

That said, I’m not sure the school’s comment about analysing the ‘three main parties at the time’ stands up very well because UKIP were recognised as major party ahead of the election, hence their inclusion in the TV debates.

Anything you would add? Please let us know in the comments or via Twitter…

Don’t forget you can sign up to receive our daily email bulletin (around 7am) with all the latest schools news stories. Your details will never be given to anyone else and you can unsubscribe at any stage. Just follow this link 

We now have a Facebook page - pls click to like!


More recent posts...

Call for degree powers as colleges left high and dry
Schools 'best placed' to run admissions, says heads' unions
Categories: Parenting, Secondary and Teaching.


  1. Nairb1

    What a load of nonsense. The school had an election with only the three main parties so the pupils were no more banned from voting for UKIP than they were banned from voting for the Greens, SNP or the Monster Raving Loonies. The article by the Express is hysterical, comment by UKIP infantile. The paper also reports on the pupil who looked at a UKIP (and others but that’s not mentioned) website as being ‘hauled into an interrogation room and grilled by detectives.’ Now what’s the word I want here … Oh, yes I’ve got it. Liars.

  2. Nairb1

    I particularly like the ‘enraged father’ who has kept his rage bottled up for a year because he was worried that teachers would take it out on his son if he complained. He’s done so now but has ensured his son isn’t picked on by remaining anonymous … a strategy it seems to have taken him a year to work out.

  3. TW

    Nairb1  Are you drunk?

    What it says is:

    “The shocking revelations come just days after revealed how the same school reported a 15-year-old boy to the police for political extremism because he visited the UKIP website in class whilst researching his homework.

    Joe Taylor was hauled into an interrogation room and grilled by detectives after politically correct teachers said he could be in danger of being groomed by extreme right-wing activists

    During an interrogation at the school an officer from a unit usually tasked with stopping students being groomed by Islamic State (ISIS) extremists asked the youngster why he was an “activist” for the party and said it was “not right” that he had clicked on its web page”

    A pathetically weak defence from the school.  Trying to defend their ridiculous ‘we didn’t have time’ excuse just shows how indefensible their behaviour actually is.

  4. Nairb1

    No I’m not drunk, do you usually respond like that when challenging someone’s point of view. As I wasn’t actually clear what your original question meant I assume I didn’t answer it properly. You’ll need to explain why you have copied chunks of the hysterical (in both senses) press article to support whatever point it is you’re trying to make.
    Or you could just keep on posting insults.

  5. Nairb1

    If you are asking about the enraged father … I got it from the newspaper article:
    ‘But one enraged father, whose child took part in the debate …. The father, who asked not to be named because his child is still at the school, said he did not raise the issue with teachers at the time because he feared a politically motivated backlash.
    He added that he had kept quiet until now because he “did not want my child’s education to be affected in a negative way by the staff”.

  6. MrBlachford

    SchoolsImprove Our school held mock elections. Many pupils voted for UKIP. Depressing, but important to model the political system as it is

  7. TW

    Nairb1  Or to put it another way, you are entirely incapable of justifying your insulting claim that people were lying and so hypocritically retreated to bleating about being insulted.

  8. Nairb1

    Unlike you I have some experience of the police talking with pupils who have been referred through the government’s ‘Prevent’ strategy. At no point were the pupils ‘hauled ‘ anywhere nor ‘grilled’ by anyone. Hence … lies.

  9. TW

    Nairb1  That’s an admission.  You can’t justify your insulting claim so resort to playing word games.  And throw in another implied insult for good measure.

  10. Nairb1

    Let me try again. I have some experience of how the police deal with pupils when a school refers them under the ‘Prevent’ requirements. The newspaper said that this pupil was ‘hauled into an interrogation room and grilled …’ It could be seen as simply an exaggeration as pupils are not ‘hauled’, there is no ‘interrogation room’ and they are not ‘grilled. But the newspaper deliberately chose these words in order to mislead. You call it a word game if you like, I call it lying.

  11. TW

    Nairb1  Again with the admission.  You are presenting your interpretation.  That is a subjective impression.  It does not establish an objective statement of fact.  Therefore there is in reality no basis for claiming it to be a lie.  It’s just you not liking other people having a different opinion to you.

  12. Nairb1

    If a person pushes me and I subsequently tell the police that he has punched me in the face and kicked me to the ground is that my subjective opinion or am I lying. My simple point is that this pupil would not have been ‘hauled’ anywhere nor would he have been ‘grilled’. I know how these processes work … it is not my subjective opinion. I’m am quite happy to be corrected providing it’s by someone who also knows how the system works and has direct experience of the procedures.

Let us know what you think...