In today's Daily Mail she writes of Lewis:
"Here is a man who has literally saved lives. Among the boys whose behaviour he has transformed through his Eastside Young Leaders’ Academy in East London are those who, without any doubt, would otherwise have gone on to kill or be killed."
She continues:
"These were the toughest boys in the neighbourhood. They had fought, bullied, smashed up their schools and set fire to them, barricaded teachers into the classrooms and been in accelerating trouble with the law. Yet when they left Eastside virtually all of them went to college and lived law-abiding lives."
Phillips then seethes on as you'd expect, just about acknowledging that Lewis had to go, just about acknowledging that if some of the stories about him turn out to true then those who've lauded him have been duped, then changing the subject to blame "the Left", Newham Council for giving him "only minimal funding" - hang on, Melanie, they didn't need to fund him at all! - and insinuating that the church's attempts to bring Lewis's past into the light have dubious motivations.
As it happens, I too would like to know why the church didn't act over Lewis before. The difference is I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories about liberal elites. But let's go back a bit. Many people, plenty of them far from fools, have praised Lewis's work at Eastside. Yet can claims that his methods have transformed hundreds of boys' lives be backed up by evidence? I don't say they can and I don't say they can't, but if Melanie or any of Lewis's other admirers can show that they've done more than simply take his or his subordinates' word for it, I'd be interested to hear from them.
Recent Comments