Latest news with #Lenehan
RTÉ News
13 hours ago
- Entertainment
- RTÉ News
Dublin fashion creative on TikTok, personal style & online trolls
Sínann Fetherston chats with fashion TikTok creator Matthew Lenehan about his style staples and how he deals with online trolls. For Matthew Lenehan, a fashion creator on TikTok with almost 30k followers to his name, if you don't step out into the world feeling a little bit stupid, you're in need of an outfit change. "If I was just starting out, I would do two things," he says of curating a stylish wardrobe. "First, find some outfits that you like, on TikTok or on Pinterest, and just copy them. Doesn't have to be piece for piece, just get the clothes and put them on. The second step is to nearly make sure you feel stupid in them." "If you put them on and you feel too comfortable, then you didn't push it out enough," he explains, promising that pieces that initially feel too 'out there' will become every day staples over time. Creating fashion content on TikTok since 2020, Lenehan's street style and dry sense of humour have garnered him a strong fanbase (as well as some trolls), with videos documenting the evolution of his eye-catching looks. A recent video, which saw the Dubliner style his girlfriend's skirt on himself, amassed over 800k views. All too aware of the kind of reactions he was likely to get, though, he knowingly captioned the clip: "Comments should be good". While many praised his styling abilities, as well as his willingness to play with pieces regardless of gender, others shared hateful comments, many of which questioned Lenehan's sexuality. In response, the content creator found a "beautiful little number from Dunnes Stores" in his mam's wardrobe to try on. "There's always going to be that group of people that give you stick," he explains. "No matter if it's the trendiest thing in the world or not, there's still going to be that core group of people who will just latch onto it, especially on TikTok, because it's so easy to just throw a comment in." Homophobic comments are often rampant in Lenehan's comment section, but he has yet to hear how wearing clothes has any ties to sexuality. "It's crazy, I'll literally have my girlfriend in the video, but that won't make me straight [to them]," he explains. "There's no way having a girlfriend makes me straight, but if you put on some wide-leg jeans, that's definitely gay? "The other side of that, as well, is that I know so many gay people who do not dress like me and have no interest in fashion. There's really no correlation, but it's just so easy for people to throw those comments in." Thankfully, the vast majority of Lenehan's content is well-received, which has led him to meet a wide network of like-minded people and a growing audience. So far, the trolls haven't deterred him. "I have the awareness that TikTok is just not real life," he says. "The amount of comments I'll get online saying, 'state of that', but I've never had anyone walk up to me on the street and say, 'hey, I just wanted you to know your outfit is poxy'." "I understand that no matter what I post, there's always going to be people commenting to try and get a reaction. If that's your thing, whatever, but that's why I've started replying to it because we can have a laugh and a bit of back and forth if that's what you really need - the attention of it." Thinking back on his school days, the visual merchandiser says it's clear that many boys have an interest in fashion, but only seem to be comfortable leaning into certain items like runners or certain jerseys. For some reason, the buck often stops there. "Back in the day, me and my friends would all be in the same sort of tracksuits, so it was just about what shoes you had on," he reflects. "If I came out in some new shoes, I'd be strutting around thinking everyone was looking at my brand new, clean shoes," he laughs. "I don't know why it's flex for your shoes, but then it stops." "There was many a shoe that I had on that I still got stick for," he adds. "Once you start edging anything out in any way, that's when it starts to get a bit ropey." It was in college that Lenehan began experimenting with his style, and credits London-based, Denmark-born content creator Magnus Ronning as being a major influence at that time. "I used to watch his YouTube videos and just be trying to stay in the loop of what's going on, what's cool, what's everyone wearing. I kind of watched him progress with his style and saw him swerve away from that more trendier, whatever is in at the minute kind of things." Now, as a trend-setter himself, the Dubiner insists that the best way to build a wardrobe is through lots of basic pieces like good quality jeans, well-made t-shirts or a classic jacket. From there, the odd statement piece can be thrown in for when you want a pop of colour or texture. The way to make a look stupidly good, though? Add some accessories. "Accessories and shoes," he says. "I can't make my decision [on an outfit] until I have my shoes on, my necklace, my earrings, rings - any sort of thing that will give it a bit more layer to it. Small bits like a bit of jewellery can just take it up to look a bit more put together."
The Advertiser
3 days ago
- Politics
- The Advertiser
Sweeping move-on police powers blasted by protesters
Controversial new laws grant police an unconstitutional level of power and could have a chilling effect on protests, critics have claimed in a court challenge. Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestinian Action Group, has taken the NSW government to the NSW Supreme Court over the anti-protest laws implemented in February. The activist is challenging the constitutional validity of police powers to move people on during protests deemed to be near places of worship. His lawyers argue the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there is no evidence a worshipper has been obstructed, harassed or is in fear. That meant the laws have stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told. The lawyers claim neither police nor protesters can determine the reach of those powers or the definition of nearness to a place of worship to take into consideration. "Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," Craig Lenehan SC told the court. He took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and could have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW. The laws were discriminatory because they expressly targeted certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others, Mr Lenehan contended. When deciding to move on protesters, police needed to make a subjective determination of whether someone feels obstructed or fearful near a place of worship. That could be extended beyond worshippers to the protection of passers-by and people unconnected to the holy place, Mr Lenehan said. "(It) is a very broad police power conferred by very ill-defined application," he said. "It has nothing to do with the exercise of religious freedom." NSW Solicitor General Michael Sexton SC will address the court about the validity of the new legislation on behalf of the state government on Thursday afternoon. The laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD. Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety. "We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said. Premier Chris Minns underscored his determination to protect the Jewish community in his first speech to parliament in 2025. "We will not be a state where someone feels like they have to remove their yarmulke (skullcap) just to walk down the street, where people are made to hide their heritage because of the ignorance, the bigotry, the racism of other people," he said. Mr Lees said the challenge against the expanded police powers was urgent because they presented a threat to the right to protest in NSW. Controversial new laws grant police an unconstitutional level of power and could have a chilling effect on protests, critics have claimed in a court challenge. Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestinian Action Group, has taken the NSW government to the NSW Supreme Court over the anti-protest laws implemented in February. The activist is challenging the constitutional validity of police powers to move people on during protests deemed to be near places of worship. His lawyers argue the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there is no evidence a worshipper has been obstructed, harassed or is in fear. That meant the laws have stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told. The lawyers claim neither police nor protesters can determine the reach of those powers or the definition of nearness to a place of worship to take into consideration. "Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," Craig Lenehan SC told the court. He took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and could have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW. The laws were discriminatory because they expressly targeted certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others, Mr Lenehan contended. When deciding to move on protesters, police needed to make a subjective determination of whether someone feels obstructed or fearful near a place of worship. That could be extended beyond worshippers to the protection of passers-by and people unconnected to the holy place, Mr Lenehan said. "(It) is a very broad police power conferred by very ill-defined application," he said. "It has nothing to do with the exercise of religious freedom." NSW Solicitor General Michael Sexton SC will address the court about the validity of the new legislation on behalf of the state government on Thursday afternoon. The laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD. Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety. "We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said. Premier Chris Minns underscored his determination to protect the Jewish community in his first speech to parliament in 2025. "We will not be a state where someone feels like they have to remove their yarmulke (skullcap) just to walk down the street, where people are made to hide their heritage because of the ignorance, the bigotry, the racism of other people," he said. Mr Lees said the challenge against the expanded police powers was urgent because they presented a threat to the right to protest in NSW. Controversial new laws grant police an unconstitutional level of power and could have a chilling effect on protests, critics have claimed in a court challenge. Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestinian Action Group, has taken the NSW government to the NSW Supreme Court over the anti-protest laws implemented in February. The activist is challenging the constitutional validity of police powers to move people on during protests deemed to be near places of worship. His lawyers argue the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there is no evidence a worshipper has been obstructed, harassed or is in fear. That meant the laws have stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told. The lawyers claim neither police nor protesters can determine the reach of those powers or the definition of nearness to a place of worship to take into consideration. "Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," Craig Lenehan SC told the court. He took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and could have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW. The laws were discriminatory because they expressly targeted certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others, Mr Lenehan contended. When deciding to move on protesters, police needed to make a subjective determination of whether someone feels obstructed or fearful near a place of worship. That could be extended beyond worshippers to the protection of passers-by and people unconnected to the holy place, Mr Lenehan said. "(It) is a very broad police power conferred by very ill-defined application," he said. "It has nothing to do with the exercise of religious freedom." NSW Solicitor General Michael Sexton SC will address the court about the validity of the new legislation on behalf of the state government on Thursday afternoon. The laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD. Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety. "We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said. Premier Chris Minns underscored his determination to protect the Jewish community in his first speech to parliament in 2025. "We will not be a state where someone feels like they have to remove their yarmulke (skullcap) just to walk down the street, where people are made to hide their heritage because of the ignorance, the bigotry, the racism of other people," he said. Mr Lees said the challenge against the expanded police powers was urgent because they presented a threat to the right to protest in NSW. Controversial new laws grant police an unconstitutional level of power and could have a chilling effect on protests, critics have claimed in a court challenge. Josh Lees, on behalf of the Palestinian Action Group, has taken the NSW government to the NSW Supreme Court over the anti-protest laws implemented in February. The activist is challenging the constitutional validity of police powers to move people on during protests deemed to be near places of worship. His lawyers argue the laws allow police to direct protesters to desist, even in instances where there is no evidence a worshipper has been obstructed, harassed or is in fear. That meant the laws have stretched police powers beyond their legitimate constitutional bounds, the court was told. The lawyers claim neither police nor protesters can determine the reach of those powers or the definition of nearness to a place of worship to take into consideration. "Because of those vagaries, the upshot is that a person might just stay home," Craig Lenehan SC told the court. He took aim at the "legislative blunderbuss" which he said was "blasting away at an ill-defined mischief" and could have a chilling effect on protesting in NSW. The laws were discriminatory because they expressly targeted certain types of political speech in a way that inevitably favoured some viewpoints over others, Mr Lenehan contended. When deciding to move on protesters, police needed to make a subjective determination of whether someone feels obstructed or fearful near a place of worship. That could be extended beyond worshippers to the protection of passers-by and people unconnected to the holy place, Mr Lenehan said. "(It) is a very broad police power conferred by very ill-defined application," he said. "It has nothing to do with the exercise of religious freedom." NSW Solicitor General Michael Sexton SC will address the court about the validity of the new legislation on behalf of the state government on Thursday afternoon. The laws were introduced by the state Labor government after a spate of anti-Semitic attacks across the nation and amid concerns about rallies going past the Great Synagogue in the Sydney CBD. Before their passage, Attorney-General Michael Daley said stronger penalties and boosted police powers would ensure people could practise their faith in safety. "We believe these proposed reforms strike the right balance between protecting people of faith and the community's right to protest," he said. Premier Chris Minns underscored his determination to protect the Jewish community in his first speech to parliament in 2025. "We will not be a state where someone feels like they have to remove their yarmulke (skullcap) just to walk down the street, where people are made to hide their heritage because of the ignorance, the bigotry, the racism of other people," he said. Mr Lees said the challenge against the expanded police powers was urgent because they presented a threat to the right to protest in NSW.
Agriland
20-05-2025
- Business
- Agriland
Watch: Agri-Food Regulator confident of further powers
The chairperson of the Agri-Food Regulator (An Rialálaí Agraibhia) has indicated that he is confident that the regulator will be afforded further powers in order to carry out its functions. Speaking to Agriland at the inaugural conference of the Agri-Food Regulator today (Tuesday, May 20), Joe Healy said that, with the powers the regulator currently has, it is not possible to 'get the full picture'. It emerged in February that the board of the Agri-Food Regulator had written to Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine Martin Heydon to seek an 'urgent meeting'. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the regulator's request for additional powers, which would allow for the regulator to compel businesses in the agri-food supply chain to provide price and market information for reporting purposes. Speaking at today's conference, Healy explained why those powers were being sought, saying: 'The purpose is…that we be able to carry out our function, and unfortunately, up to now, while we've carried it out to the best of our ability, when you aren't getting the whole picture, there's always that vacuum. 'We're very straight, very independent and very honest with the businesses, but we want them to give us the information as well,' Healy added. 'We are happy, having met the minister…[that] the government is committed in the Programme for Government to giving us enough power to do our job, he said his department are treating it as a priority…and that it his intention as minister for agriculture to ensure that the Agri-Food Regulator has the powers to carry out the duties it was set up to do,' the regulator chairperson said. The purpose of today's conference was to discuss the results of the regulator's first Supplier Survey. The aim of the regulator is to carry out such a survey annually. While the survey noted a high level of supplier satisfaction with how buyers conduct their business, one-in-seven respondents still reported being subject to an unfair trading practice. Fear of commercial retaliation is one of the reasons cited for suppliers not engaging in the regulator's complaint process. Commenting on this, the CEO of the Agri-Food Regulator, Niamh Lenehan, told Agriland: 'What I would say is that, obviously, the regulator operates a confidential complaints service, but also, commercial retaliation is one of the unfair trading practices. 'So my message is, suppliers, please come forward in confidence. We don't even need to know your name,' Lenehan added. The Supplier Survey saw the regulator work with eight businesses, with the aim that those businesses would send the survey out to their suppliers. While six of those businesses engaged in that process, two did not. Commenting on this, Lenehan said: 'I'm very disappointed, but next year, we intend that this will be an annual survey, and that it would be part of what we do on an annual basis. So there's lots of of opportunity [for those businesses] to still get involved and give a voice to their suppliers.'
Agriland
20-05-2025
- Business
- Agriland
1-in-7 agri-food suppliers report unfair trading practices
One-in-seven agri-food suppliers have reported being subject to unfair trading practices (UTPs) according to a survey carried out for An Rialálaí Agraibhia (Agri-Food Regulator). The regulator has released the findings of its first supplier survey which gathered feedback from agri-food suppliers on their experiences of trading with eight specific buyers in the retail and wholesale sectors. Conducted by Coyne Research, the Agri-Food Regulator's Suppliers Survey covered two main areas: compliance with the UTP regulations; and other general trading issues. The survey provided feedback on over 940 trading relationships. The results of the survey form the basis of the inaugural conference of the Agri-Food Regulator, which is being held today (Tuesday, May 20). The regulator said that results indicate an overall high level of supplier satisfaction with how buyers conduct their business. While a 'high level of compliance' with the UTP regulations was also noted, the survey found that one-in-seven respondents still report being subject to an unfair trading practice. The two most common issues faced being faced by respondents were being required to pay for loss or deterioration of a product, and delayed payments. Lack of awareness on rights, and the wish to maintain long-term relationships, where cited ad the key reasons for suppliers not raising issued with buyers. Furthermore, less than half the respondents were aware that the regulator's compliant procedure is confidential. The year ahead for agri-food suppliers 70% of suppliers said that cost increases and inflation were the biggest concern for the year ahead. Commenting on these results, CEO of the Agri-Food Regulator, Niamh Lenehan said: 'I'm pleased to release the findings from what we intend to be an annual suppliers survey. 'We are grateful to those six businesses who cooperated with the regulator to distribute the survey to their agri-food suppliers – Aldi Ireland, BWG Foods, Lidl Ireland, Marks and Spencer Ireland, Musgrave Group and Tesco Ireland. 'I very much welcome these survey findings which will be used to inform our work programme for the year ahead. 'This will include using the information received to progress the development of guidelines for buyers, and the conducting of further risk-based inspections with respect to compliance with unfair trading law,' she said. Lenehan did admit that she is concerned that 14% of respondents reported experiences that they characterised as unfair trading practices. She said it was concerning that some suppliers reported that they may not raise a potential breach of the regulations with either the buyers or the regulator. 'Fear of retaliation and potential damage to trading relationships are clear concerns expressed and which then potentially impact negatively on the efficient functioning of the supply chain. 'With less than half of the respondents aware that the regulator operates a confidential complaint process, we acknowledge that we have a significant amount of work to do in creating greater understanding and awareness of unfair trading practices and the role of the regulator,' Lenehan said. The conference taking place today will also examine wider aspects of the agri-food landscape – including the biggest challenges facing suppliers in the year ahead, and the progress being made at national and EU level towards greater transparency for primary producers.
Daily Mirror
18-05-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mirror
'We're terrified our kids' futures will be destroyed by huge education shake-up'
Parents and disability campaigners. are deeply concerned the government's reform of the SEND system will mean children with EHCPs will not be able to access mainstream education Terrified parents have condemned a government threat to shake-up SEND education, amid fears that 250,000 pupils at mainstream schools could lose their legal guarantee of additional support. The outcry follows suggestions by government SEND adviser Dame Christine Lenehan this week that they are considering restricting education, health and care plans (ECHPs) to children in special schools. With the latest figures for January 2024 showing that nearly 250,000 pupils with ECHPs were in mainstream schools, compared to around 186,000 in special schools, parents fear the fall out could be devastating. Speaking at the Schools and Academies Show in London, when asked if the Government's redesign of the SEND (special educational needs and disability) system would mean fewer EHCPs, Dame Lenehan said: 'I think probably so.' To questions asking if narrowing of EHCPs would mean they only applied to children in special schools, she replied: 'I think, to be honest, that's the conversation we're in the middle of.' While insisting that any new system would 'still be able to recognise and support children's needs,' she added that the structure around ECHPs was 'not fit for purpose.' Regarded as a 'lifeline' by many parents of SEND kids, EHCPs are legal documents that ensure children will receive a certain level of support in school to help with their special needs. However the number of plans has surged in recent years from 237,000 in 2016 to 576,474 in January 2024, and schools and other services have struggled to keep up with the demand. The latest news has been met with alarm from parents and disability campaigners. Anna Bird, chair of the Disabled Children's Partnership, a coalition of 120 charities, tells the Mirror: 'The idea of scrapping Education, Health and Care Plans [in mainstream schools] will terrify families. 'The reality parents and children face now is that an EHCP is the only way they can get an education.' Broadcaster and autism campaigner Carrie Grant MBE, mum to four children with additional needs, adds: 'When an EHCP ring-fences provision for a particular child there is a sense of safety, or at least a basis for negotiation between parents and school. If this money becomes available in a different form how do we make sure our child's needs are met? These are very hard times.' Hayley Harding, founder of SEND parent organisation, Let Us Learn Too, says: 'These children have done nothing to hurt anyone yet Bridget Phillipson and her department seem to want to make their lives even harder than they already are." Asked by the Mirror whether the Department of Education is considering restricting EHCPs to children in specialist schools, a spokesperson said it is 'actively working with parents and experts on the solutions'. They continued: 'The evidence is clear that this government inherited a SEND system left on its knees – with too many children not having their needs met and parents forced to fight for support. 'As part of our Plan for Change, we will restore the confidence of families up and down the country and deliver the improvement they are crying out for so every child can achieve and thrive.' Parents of SEND children are horrified by rumours that EHCPs will be restricted to children in specialist schools. Aimee Bradley and husband Davin, both 41, live in Hampshire with their three autistic children, Autumn, 12, Ashton, six, and Blake, three. Aimee says: ''I am absolutely terrified. I cannot put into words the fear and panic this causes. My daughter is in mainstream school and would be completely lost without her EHCP. It is the only thing that makes it possible for her to attend school, to learn, to feel safe. 'My youngest is only three and may never get the chance to access support. If these changes go ahead, they'll destroy children's futures. EHCPs are not a luxury. They are the only thing standing between our children and complete exclusion from education. 'My middle child, Ashton, is in a specialist provision. My youngest, Blake, is just three. He is due to start infant school in 2026 and we are in the process of applying for his EHCP. Not clearly suited to mainstream or specialist school, without a EHCP, I have no idea how he will access education at all. 'I help run SEND Reform England and every single day we receive messages from terrified parents. Our Facebook group is full of desperate families who feel ignored and broken by the system.' Influencer and author Lisa Lloyd, 40, lives in Aylesbury with husband Terry and their two autistic children Poppy, seven, and Finley, ten. She says: 'This is absolutely appalling. EHCPs are a lifeline for many children with SEND. 'Removing them means that we are basically being told our child doesn't matter. 'Taking away the EHCPs from children in mainstream schools who need them is going to have a knock on impact on everyone, including the teachers. 'We need everybody to shout from the rooftops because this cannot happen.' Nicola Holmes, 55, lives with husband Wayne and their two autistic children, Ethan, 18, and Ella, 16, in Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire. She says: 'I'm a mother of two disabled teenagers. My daughter is autistic and doesn't fit neatly into either mainstream or special school. My son is also autistic, and has Down's Syndrome. 'EHCPs give us hope - hope that someone, somewhere in the system will have to listen. They give us a sliver of power in a system where parents are often made to feel powerless. 'The idea of reducing, replacing, or restricting these plans terrifies thousands of families like mine. ''If the government truly wants to fix SEND, it must start by listening, really listening to the people who live it every day. ' Amy White , 38, from Hampshire is mum to Jack, 11 who has autism and ADHD, and daughter Esmae, three, as well as stepmum to her partner Sam's son Charlie, eight. She works as a SEND advocate and has written to her MP saying: 'I cannot overstate how damaging such a move would be – not only to the children and families directly affected but to our entire society. 'Parents are being gaslighted and misled by local authorities. Children are denied their basic rights to an appropriate education simply because they are different. 'They are different, not less. They are the change-makers of tomorrow – but only if we protect their rights today.' Charlotte Galbraith, 29, lives in Denham, Buckinghamshire, with her partner Callum, 29, and sons Angus, eight and Oscar, seven, who both have autism and ADHD and attend a specialist school. She says: 'EHCPs are essential for children with SEND to receive the support they need, particularly in mainstream schools. Without these plans, I worry it could lead to a rise in mental health crises among young people.' Georgina Davies, 42, lives in Ellesmere Port, Cheshire, with son Jonah, 14, who has autism and severe learning disabilities. She says: 'Removing EHCPs for children that need them would be catastrophic for countless children and families. 'Plunging the elderly and disabled into poverty isn't enough for this government now they want to sacrifice education for SEND children.' Siobhan Stephenson , 30, from Durham, is mum to Frankie, 11, who has autism and global development delay and Ava-Mae, eight, who is autistic. She says: 'Without EHCPs for our most vulnerable children, this would be setting them up to fail. 'The government wants the next generation to be in work to better the country. But how can that be possible without an education that meets their needs?' What we know about EHCPs Campaign Manager for the Disabled Children's Partnership, Stephen Kingdom, has explained the story so far, concerning EHCPs. Q. Are EHCPs going to be scrapped? A. The fact that the Government's most senior SEND adviser has said what she has certainly suggests it is a possibility. But we do not know for certain. Q. What will they be replaced with? A. Until the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson, makes an announcement we don't know. We are very concerned that children will lose the legal right to the support they need to succeed in school. Q. Where will the support come from if my child doesn't have an EHCP and attends a mainstream school? A. Again, until an announcement, it is unclear where provision will come from. Most requests for EHCPs come from schools themselves, because they can see the support a child needs but don't have allocated funding in their core budgets, or shared investment from local health and social care departments, to provide that support. Q. Will existing EHCPs be honoured? A. If an entirely new system is introduced, you would expect there to be a proper, well-funded transition period over a number of years. Q. Where will extra funding come from without an EHCP? A. This is the million dollar question. The fear is that the government is prioritising saving public money over the lives and wellbeing of children and families. Q. My teenager is about to leave school but will need support to go to college. What will happen to his support? You would hope that provision for school leavers will continue while they are in education, up to the age of 25, as it does currently.
