Save Woolston CHS tonight 5:15pm - Town Hall

[Paul Kennedy]

In training Observer, in training.

[Geoff Settle]

Originally posted by mummy:

that would explain the Lucozade when you came back in.

I needed a pick me up the meeting had been so flat

[warringtoncouncil.is good]

any news from tonight's meeting

[Paul Kennedy]

Started at 9.30, David was there so no doubt a report on the front page news in due course. There was an emotional debate on Woolston CHS in the main Council meeting, with a named vote. I seem to think not all of the L/Ds voted against the Labour motion. But it was lost 25 to 28 if I recall correctly.

 

[ 18.12.2007, 08:59: Message edited by: Paul Kennedy ]

[DS]

Yes Paul - the report is on the front page!

[Paul Kennedy]

I have now removed my comments as David's report is on the Front Page, making my comments superfluous, given he was there..........and I gave up after the full Council meeting.

 

[ 18.12.2007, 09:31: Message edited by: Paul Kennedy ]

[Paul Kennedy]

Originally posted by DS:

Yes Paul - the report is on the front page!

And a good one it is as well.

[Student Geoff]

Originally posted by DS:

Yes Paul - the report is on the front page!

You must have been typing furiously then Paul because it wasn't when I last looked.

 

I side with Fiona why does it have to close at all - I deplore the approach by Children's Services to pitch one school against the other - very despicable and derisory trying to split the community right down the middle.

 

WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN!!!!!!! ? how do you think they feel ? I just wonder what happens when they now as they will might do ? take things into their own hands.

 

At least the Parish Council of Poulton with Fearnhead confirmed it's suport of both High Schools last night. - The same can't be said about all of it's so called Councillors.

 

[ 18.12.2007, 09:33: Message edited by: Student Geoff ]

[Paul Kennedy]

I think, objectively, what it boils down to is that with a declining birthrate there is excess school place capacity, that excess capacity costs money to fund, money that the Council does not have....or wish to spend in that way.

 

What is going to happen to the school site after the school has closed.....I understand it was originally a 10 acre site. Is it still that size.

 

[ 18.12.2007, 09:47: Message edited by: Paul Kennedy ]

[Student Geoff]

You weren't an Accountant like my old dad, my brother or I suspect Tim Warren where you Paul?

[Paul Kennedy]

I'm actually a very good Accountant, not professionally qualified or indeed was it my background.

 

The problem we have as a society is that whilst many people want extensive public services, when it comes to paying for them, many people baulk at increased taxes........although some suggest others should pick up the tab as they themselves are not able.....or in most cases unwilling to do so.

 

I do accept that of the ?500+ billion that government spends each year, not all is used wisely, and there is much waste, maybe as much as 20%. So without that waste, and keeping the tax take the same, there would indeed be money to fund surplus school places and keep the likes of Woolston open.

[Egbert]

I don't think Student Geoff would be backing Fiona if he knew the reasoning behind her decision to vote against the rest of the executive.

 

As I read it, she was NOT questioning the need to close a school at all, but merely registering her protest that the explanation offered by the Executive did not explain why it was necessary to close a school at all.

 

Her view is firmly that the Government is to blame for the necessity to close a school - because it doesn not make enough money available for education in Warrington.

 

I'm inclined to agree with her. Education (like health care) should cost what it costs. There should be no rationing of funds and certainly not on a criteria based on the number of pupils.

 

Sod's Law being what it is, in less than 20 years we will probably have a situation where we have more pupils than we can cope with. We will have to start building new schools.

 

Where will we put them? How much will they cost.

 

It would be much better to keep existing schools, even if they are not fully occupied, thus preserving the land on which they stand for future educational use.

 

But no, the Government (and to be fair, previous Governments of different political colour) have always allocated funding on a criteria based on number of pupils. The number fall, the funding falls and the number of teachers fall. Would it not be better to say, hey, we've a falling number of pupils, let's keep our teachers so they can give them more personal attention and educate them better. Then the next generation would be better able to create a prosperous economy. But no, every Government lives for today and does not bother about the future.

[observer]

Right on EG; unfortunately folk tend to be parochial and myopic, fighting over the crumbs from their Masters table; instead of thinking long term (beyond the next election) and planning to meet all contingencies.

[Paul Kennedy]

Maybe Woolston should have renamed itself to, Northern Rock Community High School.

[observer]

[mummy]

Originally posted by Paul Kennedy:

Maybe Woolston should have renamed itself to, Northern Rock Community High School.

Thats about as funny as piles!!!!!

[Paul Kennedy]

It wasn't meant to be funny, it was satirical. In so much, that the government are prepared to stump up ?26 billion and counting, of our money, to save a bank that should have been allowed to go bust, yet unable to fund important local community assets such as WCHS. Guess it is all a question of priorities.

 

[ 18.12.2007, 14:23: Message edited by: Paul Kennedy ]

[Eagle]

I thought it was satirical, ironic and well thought out Paul; I guess that means you are not the only Philistine on the forum. :spin:

[Paul Kennedy]

Good company

 

[Dizzy]

:confused: Aren't the reasons they concluded from last night special meeting the same ones they came up with in the first place :confused:

 

So what was the point of the Scrutiny Call In and the Scrutiny Committee's findings if all that is being said is the same :confused:

 

Ok so I need sleep so may be missing something here, sorry if I am !

[Dizzy]

Originally posted by Student Geoff:

You weren't an Accountant like my old dad, my brother or I suspect Tim Warren where you Paul?

Thought I'd seen the last of that mans name since he was moved on !!!

Yes that probably classed as liable but so what...

 

IT MAY NOT BOTHER YOU BUT IT DOES BOTHER US - PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING SUCH STATEMENTS ON A PUBLIC FORUM.

 

[ 19.12.2007, 08:42: Message edited by: Gary ]

[Student Geoff]

I remeber having to negotiate hard with him fortunately he conceeded on that occasion.

 

I was not sad when I heard he'd moved on.

[Dizzy]

Originally posted by Dismayed:

Originally posted by Student Geoff:

You weren't an Accountant like my old dad, my brother or I suspect Tim Warren where you Paul?

Thought I'd seen the last of that mans name since he was moved on !!!

Yes that probably classed as liable but so what...

 

IT MAY NOT BOTHER YOU BUT IT DOES BOTHER US - PLEASE REFRAIN FROM MAKING SUCH STATEMENTS ON A PUBLIC FORUM.

Gary I'm very sorry if my comments bothered you and were obviously against your forum rules hence your removal of most of my posting.

 

However,I would just like to clarfiy that nothing that I posted hadn't already been said directly to the 'person' mentioned on numerous occasions without comeback and that I also have proof to substantiate the comments I made.

 

A public forum is somewhere where we can air our views etc etc but I am sorry that I appear to have overstepped the mark on this occasion.

 

Am I forgiven if I promise to be a good girl from now on :angelwings:

[Dizzy]

Originally posted by Student Geoff:

I remeber having to negotiate hard with him fortunately he conceeded on that occasion.

 

I was not sad when I heard he'd moved on.

You did well to negotiate on the one occasion...

 

Many were happy to see the 'changes' that were 'made' but too little too late and a wave on destruction was left behind which it seems others cannot undo.

[Student Geoff]

Dis - You are right the Woolston fiasco does appear to have his thumb print all over the closure documentation.

 

Even more reason why the current recommendations be reviewed before Warrington gets thrown in to disripute as part of the escalation procedure.

 

[ 20.12.2007, 08:52: Message edited by: Student Geoff ]