Greenwich Free School 'prison camp' searches for mobile phones

News Shopper: Lisa Wells and daughter Britney Lisa Wells and daughter Britney

A MUM who claims her 11-year-old daughter was patted down by a male teacher searching for banned mobile phones has likened Greenwich's new free school to "a prison camp".

The newly-opened Greenwich Free School has radically tough rules on phones, which involve searching pupils if there is "intelligence" they are carrying one and then confiscating it until the end of term.

But Lisa Wells claims her daughter Britney Staples was searched twice in one week, once by a male teacher with no female member of staff present.

Ms Wells, 42, of Charlton Park Lane, Charlton, said: "Her mobile phone was found in her possession and they took it from her.

"When I spoke to them they said I wasn't allowed it back until the end of October."

She said: "My daughter needs a phone to keep her safe. She walks down Shooter's Hill Road after school.

"If she's not back by 6pm I want to hear from her and make sure she's OK."

The mum-of-five, whose other children are John Roan pupils, went into the school and persuaded them to hand the handset back.

But last week her daughter was searched again after claims she had been seen with a phone on the bus into school.

Now the family say they have been told Britney cannot return to the school unless the mobile is handed over.

Ms Wells said: "I'm now trying to find out where she stands over going to a different school.

"I refuse to be blackmailed."

She said: "I thought this was the right choice for my daughter.

"All schools have rules, I totally agree with that, but there are rules and there's a prison camp."

"A clear policy"

The free school opened last month in Adair House, Woolwich, with 93 Year 7 pupils - seven short of capacity.

In the first week, nearly half those pupils - 37 of them - received detention under the school's "three strikes" policy, backing up its claims to impose strict discipline.

The school admits it takes a hard line on mobile phone use and is believed to be the only one in the borough with such a policy.

A spokeswoman said: "We have a mobile phone policy all our parents are aware of and have signed up to.

"It's about making sure our pupils are safe and can also learn in an environment with no distractions.

"Where we receive intelligence pupils are breaking our rules we will, firstly, ask them to empty their pockets and will check blazer pockets have been emptied, without any physical contact.

"Should we need to conduct a full search because pupils are being defiant, our clear policy is that the search would be conducted by a teacher of the same gender, with at least one other teacher present."

Comments (246)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

11:04am Tue 9 Oct 12

Virtual-Monster says...

The mother chose to send her child to this school and by default accepted the rules of that establishment.

The rule is no mobile phones. The child (obviously supported by her mother) broke the rule. The mother now bleats like a she is a victim.

Should the school be able to enforce its rules? Of course?

Time for the mother and child to go find another school methinks! Sooner the better for both parties.

Shame on the NS for even running this non story.
The mother chose to send her child to this school and by default accepted the rules of that establishment. The rule is no mobile phones. The child (obviously supported by her mother) broke the rule. The mother now bleats like a she is a victim. Should the school be able to enforce its rules? Of course? Time for the mother and child to go find another school methinks! Sooner the better for both parties. Shame on the NS for even running this non story. Virtual-Monster

11:09am Tue 9 Oct 12

dee2009 says...

omfg after what going on i would NOT let any child go to school with out a mobile phone,just get the kids to turn then of and if there do use them in school then just take them of them intill end of day.
omfg after what going on i would NOT let any child go to school with out a mobile phone,just get the kids to turn then of and if there do use them in school then just take them of them intill end of day. dee2009

11:09am Tue 9 Oct 12

Guess who ;) AGAIN ! says...

Its the schools rules, end of.
If you don't like it leave. See ya !!
Its the schools rules, end of. If you don't like it leave. See ya !! Guess who ;) AGAIN !

11:24am Tue 9 Oct 12

simplystace says...

i don't agree with the idea of a male teacher patting down a female pupil if this happened BUT i agree that if the rules on mobile phones was outlined when the parent and child signed up to the school then I'm afraid they don't really have anything to complain about as they must have agreed to these rules in order to be accepted into the school, whats wrong with leaving her mobile in her locker? sounds like she'd be better off in a more lenient school.
i don't agree with the idea of a male teacher patting down a female pupil if this happened BUT i agree that if the rules on mobile phones was outlined when the parent and child signed up to the school then I'm afraid they don't really have anything to complain about as they must have agreed to these rules in order to be accepted into the school, whats wrong with leaving her mobile in her locker? sounds like she'd be better off in a more lenient school. simplystace

11:47am Tue 9 Oct 12

the wall says...

simplystace wrote:
i don't agree with the idea of a male teacher patting down a female pupil if this happened BUT i agree that if the rules on mobile phones was outlined when the parent and child signed up to the school then I'm afraid they don't really have anything to complain about as they must have agreed to these rules in order to be accepted into the school, whats wrong with leaving her mobile in her locker? sounds like she'd be better off in a more lenient school.
WOW - What are the rules on using these ....... and ,,,,,, ?
[quote][p][bold]simplystace[/bold] wrote: i don't agree with the idea of a male teacher patting down a female pupil if this happened BUT i agree that if the rules on mobile phones was outlined when the parent and child signed up to the school then I'm afraid they don't really have anything to complain about as they must have agreed to these rules in order to be accepted into the school, whats wrong with leaving her mobile in her locker? sounds like she'd be better off in a more lenient school.[/p][/quote]WOW - What are the rules on using these ....... and ,,,,,, ? the wall

11:55am Tue 9 Oct 12

the wall says...

"When I spoke to them they said I wasn't allowed it back until the end of October." ....They can't do that. It is not their property and legally they can not withhold the property. Go to CAB or Jeremy Kyle or report it stolen.

However the Mum should have contacted the school and told the school the problem and come to some agreement.
"When I spoke to them they said I wasn't allowed it back until the end of October." ....They can't do that. It is not their property and legally they can not withhold the property. Go to CAB or Jeremy Kyle or report it stolen. However the Mum should have contacted the school and told the school the problem and come to some agreement. the wall

12:02pm Tue 9 Oct 12

RoyalCitizen says...

She said: "My daughter needs a phone to keep her safe. She walks down Shooter's Hill Road after school.

How did children exist before the invention of the mobile phone?

Children possessing mobiles puts them more at risk of street robbery, because they just have to have the latest model.

I've also seen idiots of all ages walk into the road, oblivious to the traffic, because they are too busy sending/receiving texts.
She said: "My daughter needs a phone to keep her safe. She walks down Shooter's Hill Road after school. How did children exist before the invention of the mobile phone? Children possessing mobiles puts them more at risk of street robbery, because they just have to have the latest model. I've also seen idiots of all ages walk into the road, oblivious to the traffic, because they are too busy sending/receiving texts. RoyalCitizen

12:15pm Tue 9 Oct 12

DaphneR says...

Oh for goodness sake! It couldn't have been made any clearer to all parents and pupils when joining the school that under no circumstances were mobile phones allowed.
This stupid woman is just encouraging her child to break the rules and then thinks she has a right to complain when she gets caught.
If you don't agree with a fundamental rule then the answer is simple. DON'T SEND YOUR CHILD THERE!
Oh for goodness sake! It couldn't have been made any clearer to all parents and pupils when joining the school that under no circumstances were mobile phones allowed. This stupid woman is just encouraging her child to break the rules and then thinks she has a right to complain when she gets caught. If you don't agree with a fundamental rule then the answer is simple. DON'T SEND YOUR CHILD THERE! DaphneR

12:20pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Guess who ;) AGAIN ! says...

DaphneR and RoyalCitizen I could not agree with you more. Bang on the money !!

This woman is just attention seeking and using her kid to get it.
DaphneR and RoyalCitizen I could not agree with you more. Bang on the money !! This woman is just attention seeking and using her kid to get it. Guess who ;) AGAIN !

12:39pm Tue 9 Oct 12

joy1978 says...

I would like to point out that the issue isnt about whether or not she broke the rules by taking in a mobile phone but its to do with the fact that she was searched by a male teacher not a female i work in an industry where we have to carry out searches i for one no that males of not alolowed to search females and this is why the mum is so angry!!!
I would like to point out that the issue isnt about whether or not she broke the rules by taking in a mobile phone but its to do with the fact that she was searched by a male teacher not a female i work in an industry where we have to carry out searches i for one no that males of not alolowed to search females and this is why the mum is so angry!!! joy1978

12:55pm Tue 9 Oct 12

DaphneR says...

I would doubt very much that she was patted down by a male teacher and would guess that she dropped that in to give herself more of a case.
If indeed the child was searched by a male member of staff then the mother should perhaps go through the correct channels rather than drawing attention to the child by going to the press.
To me it looks like she just wants her 15 minutes in the spotlight "Jeremy Kyle style".
I would doubt very much that she was patted down by a male teacher and would guess that she dropped that in to give herself more of a case. If indeed the child was searched by a male member of staff then the mother should perhaps go through the correct channels rather than drawing attention to the child by going to the press. To me it looks like she just wants her 15 minutes in the spotlight "Jeremy Kyle style". DaphneR

1:25pm Tue 9 Oct 12

greenwichman says...

Everyone please remember that this problem arose because of this child's refusal to adhere to the school's rules, to which she and her parent/carer have signed up. A signature on a piece of paper. A contract. I wonder if the mother read it properly ?
Here are the afformentioned rules. They are CRYSTAL clear.
http://www.greenwich
freeschool.co.uk/doc
uments/GFS_Q_As_mobi
le_phones.pdf
I wish this mother had thought carefully before she involved the press. This 11 year old girl is now known by name, photo, and the road in which she lives to all the readers of the NS in print and online. What happens when she goes back to school ? Well done mum...NOT.
Everyone please remember that this problem arose because of this child's refusal to adhere to the school's rules, to which she and her parent/carer have signed up. A signature on a piece of paper. A contract. I wonder if the mother read it properly ? Here are the afformentioned rules. They are CRYSTAL clear. http://www.greenwich freeschool.co.uk/doc uments/GFS_Q_As_mobi le_phones.pdf I wish this mother had thought carefully before she involved the press. This 11 year old girl is now known by name, photo, and the road in which she lives to all the readers of the NS in print and online. What happens when she goes back to school ? Well done mum...NOT. greenwichman

2:10pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Asparagus says...

RoyalCitizen wrote:
She said: "My daughter needs a phone to keep her safe. She walks down Shooter's Hill Road after school.

How did children exist before the invention of the mobile phone?

Children possessing mobiles puts them more at risk of street robbery, because they just have to have the latest model.

I've also seen idiots of all ages walk into the road, oblivious to the traffic, because they are too busy sending/receiving texts.
I used to walk down shooters hill road from school at the time Stephen Lawrence was killed. A basic phone is necessary for safety but kids should be aware of using it at the right times. I agree with this mum.
[quote][p][bold]RoyalCitizen[/bold] wrote: She said: "My daughter needs a phone to keep her safe. She walks down Shooter's Hill Road after school. How did children exist before the invention of the mobile phone? Children possessing mobiles puts them more at risk of street robbery, because they just have to have the latest model. I've also seen idiots of all ages walk into the road, oblivious to the traffic, because they are too busy sending/receiving texts.[/p][/quote]I used to walk down shooters hill road from school at the time Stephen Lawrence was killed. A basic phone is necessary for safety but kids should be aware of using it at the right times. I agree with this mum. Asparagus

2:26pm Tue 9 Oct 12

ksc says...

If you get mugged, robbed (of a mobile phone amongst other things) hit by a car, set on fire, beaten into unconsciousness, lynched, have a heart attack, pass out, get smashed on cheap cider or forget where you left your mobile phone, then a mobile phone is no use to you anyway, so texting your mate three seats away from you during lessons is not justification for taking a mobile to school, ban them all.
Rules is rules, you may not like it kid's but hey, life's tuff.
If you get mugged, robbed (of a mobile phone amongst other things) hit by a car, set on fire, beaten into unconsciousness, lynched, have a heart attack, pass out, get smashed on cheap cider or forget where you left your mobile phone, then a mobile phone is no use to you anyway, so texting your mate three seats away from you during lessons is not justification for taking a mobile to school, ban them all. Rules is rules, you may not like it kid's but hey, life's tuff. ksc

2:55pm Tue 9 Oct 12

born n breed says...

Asparagus wrote:
RoyalCitizen wrote: She said: "My daughter needs a phone to keep her safe. She walks down Shooter's Hill Road after school. How did children exist before the invention of the mobile phone? Children possessing mobiles puts them more at risk of street robbery, because they just have to have the latest model. I've also seen idiots of all ages walk into the road, oblivious to the traffic, because they are too busy sending/receiving texts.
I used to walk down shooters hill road from school at the time Stephen Lawrence was killed. A basic phone is necessary for safety but kids should be aware of using it at the right times. I agree with this mum.
What the feck has that got to do with it!

People need to stop reading the daily wail. There is not a pedo / murderer hiding behind every tree.
[quote][p][bold]Asparagus[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]RoyalCitizen[/bold] wrote: She said: "My daughter needs a phone to keep her safe. She walks down Shooter's Hill Road after school. How did children exist before the invention of the mobile phone? Children possessing mobiles puts them more at risk of street robbery, because they just have to have the latest model. I've also seen idiots of all ages walk into the road, oblivious to the traffic, because they are too busy sending/receiving texts.[/p][/quote]I used to walk down shooters hill road from school at the time Stephen Lawrence was killed. A basic phone is necessary for safety but kids should be aware of using it at the right times. I agree with this mum.[/p][/quote]What the feck has that got to do with it! People need to stop reading the daily wail. There is not a pedo / murderer hiding behind every tree. born n breed

2:58pm Tue 9 Oct 12

born n breed says...

This women should put more effort into decorating that room, and don't use those green colours.
This women should put more effort into decorating that room, and don't use those green colours. born n breed

4:38pm Tue 9 Oct 12

lisamiller says...

hi all just to clarify i know this lady and her point is that he daughter was searched by a male teacher which is not allowed there wasn't even another teacher present.she has also made attempts to sort things out with the school however she has chosen to make others aware that this has happened to hopefully prevent this happening again. to those who have said that she probably wasn't even searched are very wrong why would an 11 year old make that up? people have missed the whole point of this article which to b fair gives the impression that the main issue is about the phone which it isnt. I know that its in human nature to judge but if your daughter was searched by a male teacher im sure you'd all have something to say about it to!
hi all just to clarify i know this lady and her point is that he daughter was searched by a male teacher which is not allowed there wasn't even another teacher present.she has also made attempts to sort things out with the school however she has chosen to make others aware that this has happened to hopefully prevent this happening again. to those who have said that she probably wasn't even searched are very wrong why would an 11 year old make that up? people have missed the whole point of this article which to b fair gives the impression that the main issue is about the phone which it isnt. I know that its in human nature to judge but if your daughter was searched by a male teacher im sure you'd all have something to say about it to! lisamiller

5:25pm Tue 9 Oct 12

the wall says...

So she should have take the issue to:
1) Headteacher

2) School Governors

3) Reported it to the Police - This male teacher wasn't a maths teacher was he?

Instead she's gone to the press. Like someone has says, got her face and the daughters on the web. Handled badly.
So she should have take the issue to: 1) Headteacher 2) School Governors 3) Reported it to the Police - This male teacher wasn't a maths teacher was he? Instead she's gone to the press. Like someone has says, got her face and the daughters on the web. Handled badly. the wall

5:47pm Tue 9 Oct 12

DaphneR says...

Indeed we would, @lisamiller, (have something to say). But I would never go to the press or allow my child's name and picture to be published.
Indeed we would, @lisamiller, (have something to say). But I would never go to the press or allow my child's name and picture to be published. DaphneR

6:18pm Tue 9 Oct 12

madras says...

Top marks though for the grumpy face / arms folded photo - that's a classic!
Top marks though for the grumpy face / arms folded photo - that's a classic! madras

6:45pm Tue 9 Oct 12

lisamiller says...

@DaphneR Its not her daughter who has done anything wrong so her photo being shown isn't bringing shame on her as it is the teacher and school that is in the wrong and the fact that they have shown there identities i think shows that they are serious and want something and @ thewallsays... she has tried what you suggested but got to the point where she felt they were taking the mick and if they werent going to take the issue seriously that she would make it public so that they have no choice but to do something about it and @madras i dont think thats a posed grumpy face this lady has had enough dont really think she feels like smiling and i say again if it us i dont think we'd have much to smile about either.
@DaphneR Its not her daughter who has done anything wrong so her photo being shown isn't bringing shame on her as it is the teacher and school that is in the wrong and the fact that they have shown there identities i think shows that they are serious and want something and @ thewallsays... she has tried what you suggested but got to the point where she felt they were taking the mick and if they werent going to take the issue seriously that she would make it public so that they have no choice but to do something about it and @madras i dont think thats a posed grumpy face this lady has had enough dont really think she feels like smiling and i say again if it us i dont think we'd have much to smile about either. lisamiller

6:59pm Tue 9 Oct 12

cherished says...

1. A teacher should never search a student without another member of staff
2. They know the rules, no mobiles..
3. If parents do not like the rules then they should not send children there
4. Phones can be switched off and in the bottom of a school bag, so I cannot see why they do not want the students to have them. If they are confiscated they should have them back at the end of the day
5. When talking about possession the correct word to use is 'their'. Fed up reading that as 'there' all of the time...

A Teacher.
1. A teacher should never search a student without another member of staff 2. They know the rules, no mobiles.. 3. If parents do not like the rules then they should not send children there 4. Phones can be switched off and in the bottom of a school bag, so I cannot see why they do not want the students to have them. If they are confiscated they should have them back at the end of the day 5. When talking about possession the correct word to use is 'their'. Fed up reading that as 'there' all of the time... A Teacher. cherished

7:27pm Tue 9 Oct 12

Oldchap says...

A friend is a teacher & her class is constantly disrupted by phones ringing or beeping - and a majority of children spend their time (when they should be paying attention) texting / e-mailing / on Twitter etc

Yet who will get the blame when the kids fail exams?
A friend is a teacher & her class is constantly disrupted by phones ringing or beeping - and a majority of children spend their time (when they should be paying attention) texting / e-mailing / on Twitter etc Yet who will get the blame when the kids fail exams? Oldchap

8:50pm Tue 9 Oct 12

toomush2drink says...

Dont you just love the irony of this ? She complains that her daughter has to walk home without her phone thus making her unsafe.
She then goes to the NS so they can tell the world her daughter now walks home without a phone thus making her far more vunerable.

If she feels so upset her daughter was searched by a male teacher why did she put her in the position to be searched in the first place ?

Why dont some parents take responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming others ?
If she felt so strongly about it she could have come to an arrangement where the phone was dropped off at the start of the day and collected at home time after the first incident.

She chose to break the rules again and its come back to bite her.

Its like getting caught speeding then doing it again the week after.
Dont you just love the irony of this ? She complains that her daughter has to walk home without her phone thus making her unsafe. She then goes to the NS so they can tell the world her daughter now walks home without a phone thus making her far more vunerable. If she feels so upset her daughter was searched by a male teacher why did she put her in the position to be searched in the first place ? Why dont some parents take responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming others ? If she felt so strongly about it she could have come to an arrangement where the phone was dropped off at the start of the day and collected at home time after the first incident. She chose to break the rules again and its come back to bite her. Its like getting caught speeding then doing it again the week after. toomush2drink

9:08pm Tue 9 Oct 12

joy1978 says...

no one get this it was not about the phone it was about a male searching her that was the problem this lady is only trying to protect her daughter and let others know what has happened i think maybe some of you would think differently about this if it was your child and not someone elses rules were broken and she has gone to the head and the board and the police all our investigating the newspaper has wrote the article wrong it was never avout the phone it was about the searching!!!!!
no one get this it was not about the phone it was about a male searching her that was the problem this lady is only trying to protect her daughter and let others know what has happened i think maybe some of you would think differently about this if it was your child and not someone elses rules were broken and she has gone to the head and the board and the police all our investigating the newspaper has wrote the article wrong it was never avout the phone it was about the searching!!!!! joy1978

9:35pm Tue 9 Oct 12

cherished says...

Wow, if the students are rule breakers and the parents unsupportive of the school, I'm glad I didn't decide to go for a job there....
Wow, if the students are rule breakers and the parents unsupportive of the school, I'm glad I didn't decide to go for a job there.... cherished

9:41pm Tue 9 Oct 12

toomush2drink says...

joy1978 wrote:
no one get this it was not about the phone it was about a male searching her that was the problem this lady is only trying to protect her daughter and let others know what has happened i think maybe some of you would think differently about this if it was your child and not someone elses rules were broken and she has gone to the head and the board and the police all our investigating the newspaper has wrote the article wrong it was never avout the phone it was about the searching!!!!!
If it wasnt about the phone then why did she sign up to the rules about taking a phone to school then put her daughter into this situation where she was searched because she had a phone on her ?

Like i said take responsibility for your actions as a parent and stop blaming others.
The search would not have happened if the rules had not been broken in the first place (parents fault) thus making them suspicious she may be carrying one another time.

Sure they may have done wrong but which persons actions started the chain of events ?
Yes thats right, the parent who signed up to the rules but then chose to break them.
[quote][p][bold]joy1978[/bold] wrote: no one get this it was not about the phone it was about a male searching her that was the problem this lady is only trying to protect her daughter and let others know what has happened i think maybe some of you would think differently about this if it was your child and not someone elses rules were broken and she has gone to the head and the board and the police all our investigating the newspaper has wrote the article wrong it was never avout the phone it was about the searching!!!!![/p][/quote]If it wasnt about the phone then why did she sign up to the rules about taking a phone to school then put her daughter into this situation where she was searched because she had a phone on her ? Like i said take responsibility for your actions as a parent and stop blaming others. The search would not have happened if the rules had not been broken in the first place (parents fault) thus making them suspicious she may be carrying one another time. Sure they may have done wrong but which persons actions started the chain of events ? Yes thats right, the parent who signed up to the rules but then chose to break them. toomush2drink

10:06pm Tue 9 Oct 12

jblast says...

Let me get this straight, Mrs Wells is refusing to send her daughter back to school, a school by the way which has a strict policy on mobile phones, which Mrs Wells obviously knew as she signed an agreement when her daughter joined the school, but Mrs Well's priority is to retrieve a phone and affect her daughters education.
Now call me old fashioned but 3 strikes mean 3 strikes, if Mrs Wells can't understand that then i suggest Mrs Wells joins her daughter and go back to school. Oh, she cant can she, she aint got her dog and bone back has she!
Another suggestion is that she sends her daughter to John Roan like her other kids then she can do what the hell she wants.
Let me get this straight, Mrs Wells is refusing to send her daughter back to school, a school by the way which has a strict policy on mobile phones, which Mrs Wells obviously knew as she signed an agreement when her daughter joined the school, but Mrs Well's priority is to retrieve a phone and affect her daughters education. Now call me old fashioned but 3 strikes mean 3 strikes, if Mrs Wells can't understand that then i suggest Mrs Wells joins her daughter and go back to school. Oh, she cant can she, she aint got her dog and bone back has she! Another suggestion is that she sends her daughter to John Roan like her other kids then she can do what the hell she wants. jblast

10:17pm Tue 9 Oct 12

jaded1 says...

Any more moaning from this family and i'm sending Jimmy Saville round to babysit!
Any more moaning from this family and i'm sending Jimmy Saville round to babysit! jaded1

11:23pm Tue 9 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

joy1978 wrote:
no one get this it was not about the phone it was about a male searching her that was the problem this lady is only trying to protect her daughter and let others know what has happened i think maybe some of you would think differently about this if it was your child and not someone elses rules were broken and she has gone to the head and the board and the police all our investigating the newspaper has wrote the article wrong it was never avout the phone it was about the searching!!!!!
Will you please use the odd bit of punctuation,i cannot read your ramblings.
[quote][p][bold]joy1978[/bold] wrote: no one get this it was not about the phone it was about a male searching her that was the problem this lady is only trying to protect her daughter and let others know what has happened i think maybe some of you would think differently about this if it was your child and not someone elses rules were broken and she has gone to the head and the board and the police all our investigating the newspaper has wrote the article wrong it was never avout the phone it was about the searching!!!!![/p][/quote]Will you please use the odd bit of punctuation,i cannot read your ramblings. lord righteous

11:25pm Tue 9 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

Is it actually illegal for a male,in whatever capacity,to 'pat down' or even search a female?
Is it actually illegal for a male,in whatever capacity,to 'pat down' or even search a female? lord righteous

8:06am Wed 10 Oct 12

joy1978 says...

lord righteous wrote:
Is it actually illegal for a male,in whatever capacity,to 'pat down' or even search a female?
this is what the problem was, the fact she was searched by a male and not a female, i would also like to point out that when they searched her all they found was a toy phone that had sweetes in it not a real one!!! as for my punctuation at least i read the article and relised that its about the searching and not the phone.
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Is it actually illegal for a male,in whatever capacity,to 'pat down' or even search a female?[/p][/quote]this is what the problem was, the fact she was searched by a male and not a female, i would also like to point out that when they searched her all they found was a toy phone that had sweetes in it not a real one!!! as for my punctuation at least i read the article and relised that its about the searching and not the phone. joy1978

8:32am Wed 10 Oct 12

PaulErith says...

Another parent installing virtues into their child that it's ok to break the rules. The Mum should be making sure her kid complies with school policy and not moaning to the press. Mobile phones have no place in school.
I think some people forget that they are not a necessity. 15 years ago most people didn't have them. I used to walk home from school as did my mates before mobiles.
Another parent installing virtues into their child that it's ok to break the rules. The Mum should be making sure her kid complies with school policy and not moaning to the press. Mobile phones have no place in school. I think some people forget that they are not a necessity. 15 years ago most people didn't have them. I used to walk home from school as did my mates before mobiles. PaulErith

8:36am Wed 10 Oct 12

RoyalCitizen says...

It is often the case that words and pictures can be taken out of context, and given a different meaning.

But I have to say, the second picture above, the one of the matriculation ceremony, does smack of Ku Klux Klan meets Hitler Youth!?
It is often the case that words and pictures can be taken out of context, and given a different meaning. But I have to say, the second picture above, the one of the matriculation ceremony, does smack of Ku Klux Klan meets Hitler Youth!? RoyalCitizen

9:08am Wed 10 Oct 12

omg.com says...

I can not belive grown ups are going on about children breaking rules when u come on here and behave like this. Pot kettle springs to mind how many of u have phones (the latest ones) how many of ur kids take them to school i reckon most of ur kids texting there mate as u sit here like old fish wifes moaning iam glad my 12 year old has i phone i no when his at school and when his on his way home because he texts me so iff a teacher searched my son and took his phone i would go nut but if my son was bbming in lesson i would get him a £10 phone so i ccan contact him and he knows this as to why he keeps his phone in bag till break time xx
I can not belive grown ups are going on about children breaking rules when u come on here and behave like this. Pot kettle springs to mind how many of u have phones (the latest ones) how many of ur kids take them to school i reckon most of ur kids texting there mate as u sit here like old fish wifes moaning iam glad my 12 year old has i phone i no when his at school and when his on his way home because he texts me so iff a teacher searched my son and took his phone i would go nut but if my son was bbming in lesson i would get him a £10 phone so i ccan contact him and he knows this as to why he keeps his phone in bag till break time xx omg.com

9:23am Wed 10 Oct 12

Invicta58 says...

joy1978 wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Is it actually illegal for a male,in whatever capacity,to 'pat down' or even search a female?
this is what the problem was, the fact she was searched by a male and not a female, i would also like to point out that when they searched her all they found was a toy phone that had sweetes in it not a real one!!! as for my punctuation at least i read the article and relised that its about the searching and not the phone.
Ok – so the problem is nothing to do with the phone but that she was allegedly searched by a male teacher.

So has the mother or daughter gone to the police to report the teacher for alleged assault? If not I suspect it’s because it never happened as described and was added as a diversion to shift the blame from the daughter breaking the rules to the teacher.

The court will decide if the teacher assaulted the daughter. If the teacher isn’t reported officially it would indicate it didn’t actually happen. The ball is in their court to resolve through the proper channels rather than “trial by News Shopper”.

Let us know what they decide.
[quote][p][bold]joy1978[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Is it actually illegal for a male,in whatever capacity,to 'pat down' or even search a female?[/p][/quote]this is what the problem was, the fact she was searched by a male and not a female, i would also like to point out that when they searched her all they found was a toy phone that had sweetes in it not a real one!!! as for my punctuation at least i read the article and relised that its about the searching and not the phone.[/p][/quote]Ok – so the problem is nothing to do with the phone but that she was allegedly searched by a male teacher. So has the mother or daughter gone to the police to report the teacher for alleged assault? If not I suspect it’s because it never happened as described and was added as a diversion to shift the blame from the daughter breaking the rules to the teacher. The court will decide if the teacher assaulted the daughter. If the teacher isn’t reported officially it would indicate it didn’t actually happen. The ball is in their court to resolve through the proper channels rather than “trial by News Shopper”. Let us know what they decide. Invicta58

9:30am Wed 10 Oct 12

joy1978 says...

Invicta58 wrote:
joy1978 wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Is it actually illegal for a male,in whatever capacity,to 'pat down' or even search a female?
this is what the problem was, the fact she was searched by a male and not a female, i would also like to point out that when they searched her all they found was a toy phone that had sweetes in it not a real one!!! as for my punctuation at least i read the article and relised that its about the searching and not the phone.
Ok – so the problem is nothing to do with the phone but that she was allegedly searched by a male teacher.

So has the mother or daughter gone to the police to report the teacher for alleged assault? If not I suspect it’s because it never happened as described and was added as a diversion to shift the blame from the daughter breaking the rules to the teacher.

The court will decide if the teacher assaulted the daughter. If the teacher isn’t reported officially it would indicate it didn’t actually happen. The ball is in their court to resolve through the proper channels rather than “trial by News Shopper”.

Let us know what they decide.
yes the mother has gone to the head and police and im sure she will let us know the outcome.

she went to the papers to let other parents know that girls were being searched by males thats all it was nothing to do with the phone.
[quote][p][bold]Invicta58[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joy1978[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Is it actually illegal for a male,in whatever capacity,to 'pat down' or even search a female?[/p][/quote]this is what the problem was, the fact she was searched by a male and not a female, i would also like to point out that when they searched her all they found was a toy phone that had sweetes in it not a real one!!! as for my punctuation at least i read the article and relised that its about the searching and not the phone.[/p][/quote]Ok – so the problem is nothing to do with the phone but that she was allegedly searched by a male teacher. So has the mother or daughter gone to the police to report the teacher for alleged assault? If not I suspect it’s because it never happened as described and was added as a diversion to shift the blame from the daughter breaking the rules to the teacher. The court will decide if the teacher assaulted the daughter. If the teacher isn’t reported officially it would indicate it didn’t actually happen. The ball is in their court to resolve through the proper channels rather than “trial by News Shopper”. Let us know what they decide.[/p][/quote]yes the mother has gone to the head and police and im sure she will let us know the outcome. she went to the papers to let other parents know that girls were being searched by males thats all it was nothing to do with the phone. joy1978

10:10am Wed 10 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

So is it illegal or not?
If it is not illegal,what is the problem?
So is it illegal or not? If it is not illegal,what is the problem? lord righteous

10:18am Wed 10 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

I have just googled it.
It is not illegal for a male to search or pat down a female.It is advised against because of the pathetic legal threat of assault.
Joy1978, when you or your family go to an airport,nightclub or anywhere with security.Do you insist on choosing who searches you or do you,as i suspect,just get on with it without complaining?
The fact of this story is that the girl broke school rules once.The school then had information the girl was breaking the same rule again.They patted her down and found their information was wrong.
What blooming harm has been done?
I have just googled it. It is not illegal for a male to search or pat down a female.It is advised against because of the pathetic legal threat of assault. Joy1978, when you or your family go to an airport,nightclub or anywhere with security.Do you insist on choosing who searches you or do you,as i suspect,just get on with it without complaining? The fact of this story is that the girl broke school rules once.The school then had information the girl was breaking the same rule again.They patted her down and found their information was wrong. What blooming harm has been done? lord righteous

10:42am Wed 10 Oct 12

joy1978 says...

lord righteous wrote:
I have just googled it.
It is not illegal for a male to search or pat down a female.It is advised against because of the pathetic legal threat of assault.
Joy1978, when you or your family go to an airport,nightclub or anywhere with security.Do you insist on choosing who searches you or do you,as i suspect,just get on with it without complaining?
The fact of this story is that the girl broke school rules once.The school then had information the girl was breaking the same rule again.They patted her down and found their information was wrong.
What blooming harm has been done?
When it comes to my girls i do ask for a female to do it. My parner is a security officer and he is not allowed to carry out searches on females another female has to do it!
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: I have just googled it. It is not illegal for a male to search or pat down a female.It is advised against because of the pathetic legal threat of assault. Joy1978, when you or your family go to an airport,nightclub or anywhere with security.Do you insist on choosing who searches you or do you,as i suspect,just get on with it without complaining? The fact of this story is that the girl broke school rules once.The school then had information the girl was breaking the same rule again.They patted her down and found their information was wrong. What blooming harm has been done?[/p][/quote]When it comes to my girls i do ask for a female to do it. My parner is a security officer and he is not allowed to carry out searches on females another female has to do it! joy1978

11:34am Wed 10 Oct 12

EverardEdbutt says...

She said: "My daughter needs a phone to keep her safe. She walks down Shooter's Hill Road after school.

"If she's not back by 6pm I want to hear from her and make sure she's OK."


Firstly she does not need a mobile phone she is 11 years old for crying out loud!
Secondly make sure your daughter returns home before 6pm.
What is she doing in the 2+ hours after school finishes?

I remember when I was young, when I was just a teenager.
I never had a phone, I never had a pager.

I managed to survive and get through my schooling, if my parents needed to contact me or vice versa then a phone call to the school office, or to home from the school office sufficed.

As many have said before you signed up for this by accepting the place at the school, so stop bleating to the papers now your little darling has fallen foul of the rules!
She said: "My daughter needs a phone to keep her safe. She walks down Shooter's Hill Road after school. "If she's not back by 6pm I want to hear from her and make sure she's OK." Firstly she does not need a mobile phone she is 11 years old for crying out loud! Secondly make sure your daughter returns home before 6pm. What is she doing in the 2+ hours after school finishes? I remember when I was young, when I was just a teenager. I never had a phone, I never had a pager. I managed to survive and get through my schooling, if my parents needed to contact me or vice versa then a phone call to the school office, or to home from the school office sufficed. As many have said before you signed up for this by accepting the place at the school, so stop bleating to the papers now your little darling has fallen foul of the rules! EverardEdbutt

11:37am Wed 10 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

joy1978 wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
I have just googled it.
It is not illegal for a male to search or pat down a female.It is advised against because of the pathetic legal threat of assault.
Joy1978, when you or your family go to an airport,nightclub or anywhere with security.Do you insist on choosing who searches you or do you,as i suspect,just get on with it without complaining?
The fact of this story is that the girl broke school rules once.The school then had information the girl was breaking the same rule again.They patted her down and found their information was wrong.
What blooming harm has been done?
When it comes to my girls i do ask for a female to do it. My parner is a security officer and he is not allowed to carry out searches on females another female has to do it!
Apart from the police,no one has the right to search anyone else,your husband included.
If a security guard,doorman or whoever (except the police) want to search you they have to ask permission first.If the person refuses then thats the end of it,but you will not gain access to the place you wanted to get into.
As i have already said,it is NOT ILLEGAL for a male to search a female and vice versa.
What is your problem with a male 'patting down' a female?
When your girls are old enough they will happily let a bouncer 'pat them down' to get into a club!
[quote][p][bold]joy1978[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: I have just googled it. It is not illegal for a male to search or pat down a female.It is advised against because of the pathetic legal threat of assault. Joy1978, when you or your family go to an airport,nightclub or anywhere with security.Do you insist on choosing who searches you or do you,as i suspect,just get on with it without complaining? The fact of this story is that the girl broke school rules once.The school then had information the girl was breaking the same rule again.They patted her down and found their information was wrong. What blooming harm has been done?[/p][/quote]When it comes to my girls i do ask for a female to do it. My parner is a security officer and he is not allowed to carry out searches on females another female has to do it![/p][/quote]Apart from the police,no one has the right to search anyone else,your husband included. If a security guard,doorman or whoever (except the police) want to search you they have to ask permission first.If the person refuses then thats the end of it,but you will not gain access to the place you wanted to get into. As i have already said,it is NOT ILLEGAL for a male to search a female and vice versa. What is your problem with a male 'patting down' a female? When your girls are old enough they will happily let a bouncer 'pat them down' to get into a club! lord righteous

11:46am Wed 10 Oct 12

Guess who ;) AGAIN ! says...

You always get one don't you. Lisa Wells you are that one.
Almost all reasonable parents would back the school up 100%. You are on a looser with the phone nonsense so now its the male teacher doing the pat down.

Grow up lady FFS.
You always get one don't you. Lisa Wells you are that one. Almost all reasonable parents would back the school up 100%. You are on a looser with the phone nonsense so now its the male teacher doing the pat down. Grow up lady FFS. Guess who ;) AGAIN !

1:26pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Oldchap says...

joy1978 wrote:
Invicta58 wrote:
joy1978 wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Is it actually illegal for a male,in whatever capacity,to 'pat down' or even search a female?
this is what the problem was, the fact she was searched by a male and not a female, i would also like to point out that when they searched her all they found was a toy phone that had sweetes in it not a real one!!! as for my punctuation at least i read the article and relised that its about the searching and not the phone.
Ok – so the problem is nothing to do with the phone but that she was allegedly searched by a male teacher.

So has the mother or daughter gone to the police to report the teacher for alleged assault? If not I suspect it’s because it never happened as described and was added as a diversion to shift the blame from the daughter breaking the rules to the teacher.

The court will decide if the teacher assaulted the daughter. If the teacher isn’t reported officially it would indicate it didn’t actually happen. The ball is in their court to resolve through the proper channels rather than “trial by News Shopper”.

Let us know what they decide.
yes the mother has gone to the head and police and im sure she will let us know the outcome.

she went to the papers to let other parents know that girls were being searched by males thats all it was nothing to do with the phone.
So she's gone to the police - presumably to report assault

Please let us know what action is being taken as I'm sure everyone is interested

Never mind, she & her mother have had their 15 minutes of fame
[quote][p][bold]joy1978[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Invicta58[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joy1978[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Is it actually illegal for a male,in whatever capacity,to 'pat down' or even search a female?[/p][/quote]this is what the problem was, the fact she was searched by a male and not a female, i would also like to point out that when they searched her all they found was a toy phone that had sweetes in it not a real one!!! as for my punctuation at least i read the article and relised that its about the searching and not the phone.[/p][/quote]Ok – so the problem is nothing to do with the phone but that she was allegedly searched by a male teacher. So has the mother or daughter gone to the police to report the teacher for alleged assault? If not I suspect it’s because it never happened as described and was added as a diversion to shift the blame from the daughter breaking the rules to the teacher. The court will decide if the teacher assaulted the daughter. If the teacher isn’t reported officially it would indicate it didn’t actually happen. The ball is in their court to resolve through the proper channels rather than “trial by News Shopper”. Let us know what they decide.[/p][/quote]yes the mother has gone to the head and police and im sure she will let us know the outcome. she went to the papers to let other parents know that girls were being searched by males thats all it was nothing to do with the phone.[/p][/quote]So she's gone to the police - presumably to report assault Please let us know what action is being taken as I'm sure everyone is interested Never mind, she & her mother have had their 15 minutes of fame Oldchap

1:51pm Wed 10 Oct 12

greenwichman says...

FAO EverardEdbutt and other readers.
In the interest of factual balance, you should be aware that Greenwich Free School home time is 17.30 on Tues, Weds, Thurs. I don't think you realise this.
FAO EverardEdbutt and other readers. In the interest of factual balance, you should be aware that Greenwich Free School home time is 17.30 on Tues, Weds, Thurs. I don't think you realise this. greenwichman

4:57pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Deefea says...

As a parent of a child attending GFS, and one appearing in the cleverly depicted (but very wrong) photograph, taken at our children's Matriculation Ceremony; I am disgusted that the school would be represented in this way and as far as I can see it, there is no justification at all for the Newsshopper to abuse their privilege in the way that they have done with this issue. I did NOT at any time agree to the use of my son's photograph and will be seeking advice on the implications of this. Let me make this very clear, we chose this school on the pretence that discipline is very high on the agenda, which is very refreshing considering the reputation of other local schools; yes I did just confirm that there really was no other choice due to the lack of discipline in children elsewhere. We were met with detailed information, by the Head Teacher at GFS, whereby our son was clearly made aware of the rules that had been set, along with the reasons why. The biggest rule being that there will be no tolerance on mobile phones at all. There was also a school contractual consent form which parents and pupils were required to sign in agreement and we were specifically told that if you wish your child to carry a mobile phone or insist that they have it, then with due respect, this school is not for you.
How dare this parent, who would have had this information, still send their daughter to the school, intentionally breaking the rules and have the absolute cheek to write detrimental, unsupported rubbish just because her daughter was not allowed the phone and was subsequently caught breaking the rules!! Yes I think you are right Mrs Wells, your daughter does belong at one of the other schools as if this is your way of dealing with "communication" and in doing so, stirring up bad feeling for other parents, who are very pleased with what GFS have achieved so far with their equally loved children who DO NOT break the rules they signed up for, I suggest you move along.

As for the way in which I feel the photograph had been used, did you have the decency to explain the irony in the photograph? Did you enlighten all Newsshopper's readers that in fact this was a poem by Benjamin Zephaniah? Faceless? No, I should expect you were more proud of your golden opportunity to mock the efforts of GFS along with your depiction of the photograph and caption "Prison Camp". Very sad how you as a Newsspaper were invited to come along and see all of GFS' hard work, yet you have spoiled yourselves by backing a story that quite franjly is the reason this country is in the state it is and in need of schools like GFS!!!!!!!
As a parent of a child attending GFS, and one appearing in the cleverly depicted (but very wrong) photograph, taken at our children's Matriculation Ceremony; I am disgusted that the school would be represented in this way and as far as I can see it, there is no justification at all for the Newsshopper to abuse their privilege in the way that they have done with this issue. I did NOT at any time agree to the use of my son's photograph and will be seeking advice on the implications of this. Let me make this very clear, we chose this school on the pretence that discipline is very high on the agenda, which is very refreshing considering the reputation of other local schools; yes I did just confirm that there really was no other choice due to the lack of discipline in children elsewhere. We were met with detailed information, by the Head Teacher at GFS, whereby our son was clearly made aware of the rules that had been set, along with the reasons why. The biggest rule being that there will be no tolerance on mobile phones at all. There was also a school contractual consent form which parents and pupils were required to sign in agreement and we were specifically told that if you wish your child to carry a mobile phone or insist that they have it, then with due respect, this school is not for you. How dare this parent, who would have had this information, still send their daughter to the school, intentionally breaking the rules and have the absolute cheek to write detrimental, unsupported rubbish just because her daughter was not allowed the phone and was subsequently caught breaking the rules!! Yes I think you are right Mrs Wells, your daughter does belong at one of the other schools as if this is your way of dealing with "communication" and in doing so, stirring up bad feeling for other parents, who are very pleased with what GFS have achieved so far with their equally loved children who DO NOT break the rules they signed up for, I suggest you move along. As for the way in which I feel the photograph had been used, did you have the decency to explain the irony in the photograph? Did you enlighten all Newsshopper's readers that in fact this was a poem by Benjamin Zephaniah? Faceless? No, I should expect you were more proud of your golden opportunity to mock the efforts of GFS along with your depiction of the photograph and caption "Prison Camp". Very sad how you as a Newsspaper were invited to come along and see all of GFS' hard work, yet you have spoiled yourselves by backing a story that quite franjly is the reason this country is in the state it is and in need of schools like GFS!!!!!!! Deefea

5:45pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Oldchap says...

In the photo I could not see any of the faces, you obviously know which is your child but I doubt anyone else would

Although it seems ironic that many schools forbid parents taking pictures at events, yet on this occasion that have supplied photos to a newspaper
In the photo I could not see any of the faces, you obviously know which is your child but I doubt anyone else would Although it seems ironic that many schools forbid parents taking pictures at events, yet on this occasion that have supplied photos to a newspaper Oldchap

5:51pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Deefea says...

Oldchap wrote:
In the photo I could not see any of the faces, you obviously know which is your child but I doubt anyone else would

Although it seems ironic that many schools forbid parents taking pictures at events, yet on this occasion that have supplied photos to a newspaper
No GFS does not forbid parents to take photographs. I think you are missing the point......Newsshopp
er were invited to an event to celebrate and photograph success, to aid GFS going forwards. Newsshopper were not permitted to use photographs from that evening to support a very different personal attack on the school. Why not do their usual and photgraph the pupil involved with a mobile phone? The photo is irrelevant to the cause but has been cunningly picked to amuse. There is no grey area in this issue I am afraid.
[quote][p][bold]Oldchap[/bold] wrote: In the photo I could not see any of the faces, you obviously know which is your child but I doubt anyone else would Although it seems ironic that many schools forbid parents taking pictures at events, yet on this occasion that have supplied photos to a newspaper[/p][/quote]No GFS does not forbid parents to take photographs. I think you are missing the point......Newsshopp er were invited to an event to celebrate and photograph success, to aid GFS going forwards. Newsshopper were not permitted to use photographs from that evening to support a very different personal attack on the school. Why not do their usual and photgraph the pupil involved with a mobile phone? The photo is irrelevant to the cause but has been cunningly picked to amuse. There is no grey area in this issue I am afraid. Deefea

6:15pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Deefea says...

lisamiller wrote:
hi all just to clarify i know this lady and her point is that he daughter was searched by a male teacher which is not allowed there wasn't even another teacher present.she has also made attempts to sort things out with the school however she has chosen to make others aware that this has happened to hopefully prevent this happening again. to those who have said that she probably wasn't even searched are very wrong why would an 11 year old make that up? people have missed the whole point of this article which to b fair gives the impression that the main issue is about the phone which it isnt. I know that its in human nature to judge but if your daughter was searched by a male teacher im sure you'd all have something to say about it to!
Sorry, I think quite frankly the teachers/head of the school are so open with their communications/rules and what they expect, I fail to see why her Good Samaritan task of making the school look like a prison camp, has helped at all. I totally disagree, the nanny state that is created by this country which allows crap like this to spread, is laughable. I know exactly what the searches are and have been and no, I think this is a farce and a way to create a stir as she wants her daughter to be the exception to the rule. I do not want to go to war on it, but the fact my child is used in a photo for a cause I DO NOT support, it tells me that its highly likely, the battle over the phone was lost, so lets find out if the search was inappropriate and go down that road to get some satisfaction! next thing you know, we will have teachers scared to be in the same room as female pupils for fear of allegations! I doubt very much if we will hear any convictions coming from this rant!
[quote][p][bold]lisamiller[/bold] wrote: hi all just to clarify i know this lady and her point is that he daughter was searched by a male teacher which is not allowed there wasn't even another teacher present.she has also made attempts to sort things out with the school however she has chosen to make others aware that this has happened to hopefully prevent this happening again. to those who have said that she probably wasn't even searched are very wrong why would an 11 year old make that up? people have missed the whole point of this article which to b fair gives the impression that the main issue is about the phone which it isnt. I know that its in human nature to judge but if your daughter was searched by a male teacher im sure you'd all have something to say about it to![/p][/quote]Sorry, I think quite frankly the teachers/head of the school are so open with their communications/rules and what they expect, I fail to see why her Good Samaritan task of making the school look like a prison camp, has helped at all. I totally disagree, the nanny state that is created by this country which allows crap like this to spread, is laughable. I know exactly what the searches are and have been and no, I think this is a farce and a way to create a stir as she wants her daughter to be the exception to the rule. I do not want to go to war on it, but the fact my child is used in a photo for a cause I DO NOT support, it tells me that its highly likely, the battle over the phone was lost, so lets find out if the search was inappropriate and go down that road to get some satisfaction! next thing you know, we will have teachers scared to be in the same room as female pupils for fear of allegations! I doubt very much if we will hear any convictions coming from this rant! Deefea

6:17pm Wed 10 Oct 12

bizzymum says...

Interesting stuff. I read a comment on here earlier today which (surprise, surprise) has disappeared.

If I recall it, the girl in question when searched by a member of staff was said to be found to be in possession of a 'toy mobile phone filled with sweets'.

This story smacks of provocation.
Interesting stuff. I read a comment on here earlier today which (surprise, surprise) has disappeared. If I recall it, the girl in question when searched by a member of staff was said to be found to be in possession of a 'toy mobile phone filled with sweets'. This story smacks of provocation. bizzymum

6:19pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Deefea says...

joy1978 wrote:
Invicta58 wrote:
joy1978 wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Is it actually illegal for a male,in whatever capacity,to 'pat down' or even search a female?
this is what the problem was, the fact she was searched by a male and not a female, i would also like to point out that when they searched her all they found was a toy phone that had sweetes in it not a real one!!! as for my punctuation at least i read the article and relised that its about the searching and not the phone.
Ok – so the problem is nothing to do with the phone but that she was allegedly searched by a male teacher.

So has the mother or daughter gone to the police to report the teacher for alleged assault? If not I suspect it’s because it never happened as described and was added as a diversion to shift the blame from the daughter breaking the rules to the teacher.

The court will decide if the teacher assaulted the daughter. If the teacher isn’t reported officially it would indicate it didn’t actually happen. The ball is in their court to resolve through the proper channels rather than “trial by News Shopper”.

Let us know what they decide.
yes the mother has gone to the head and police and im sure she will let us know the outcome.

she went to the papers to let other parents know that girls were being searched by males thats all it was nothing to do with the phone.
She went to the papers to let other parents know?? Sorry to mock this but theres under 100 kids attending, most of which attend regularly to the school! Searched by males? Are females ok to empty the boys pockets? All of a sudden its not about the phone, nor the school, its an assault........GOD GIVE ME STRENGTH!!!
[quote][p][bold]joy1978[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Invicta58[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joy1978[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Is it actually illegal for a male,in whatever capacity,to 'pat down' or even search a female?[/p][/quote]this is what the problem was, the fact she was searched by a male and not a female, i would also like to point out that when they searched her all they found was a toy phone that had sweetes in it not a real one!!! as for my punctuation at least i read the article and relised that its about the searching and not the phone.[/p][/quote]Ok – so the problem is nothing to do with the phone but that she was allegedly searched by a male teacher. So has the mother or daughter gone to the police to report the teacher for alleged assault? If not I suspect it’s because it never happened as described and was added as a diversion to shift the blame from the daughter breaking the rules to the teacher. The court will decide if the teacher assaulted the daughter. If the teacher isn’t reported officially it would indicate it didn’t actually happen. The ball is in their court to resolve through the proper channels rather than “trial by News Shopper”. Let us know what they decide.[/p][/quote]yes the mother has gone to the head and police and im sure she will let us know the outcome. she went to the papers to let other parents know that girls were being searched by males thats all it was nothing to do with the phone.[/p][/quote]She went to the papers to let other parents know?? Sorry to mock this but theres under 100 kids attending, most of which attend regularly to the school! Searched by males? Are females ok to empty the boys pockets? All of a sudden its not about the phone, nor the school, its an assault........GOD GIVE ME STRENGTH!!! Deefea

6:35pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Deefea says...

lisamiller wrote:
@DaphneR Its not her daughter who has done anything wrong so her photo being shown isn't bringing shame on her as it is the teacher and school that is in the wrong and the fact that they have shown there identities i think shows that they are serious and want something and @ thewallsays... she has tried what you suggested but got to the point where she felt they were taking the mick and if they werent going to take the issue seriously that she would make it public so that they have no choice but to do something about it and @madras i dont think thats a posed grumpy face this lady has had enough dont really think she feels like smiling and i say again if it us i dont think we'd have much to smile about either.
No, its my child's photo thank you very much! Used to call a school a prison camp all because the child lost power. Simple. How disgusting. This is a prime example off using media in the wrong way. Sad that the NS even went there to accomodate such a pathetic story really.
[quote][p][bold]lisamiller[/bold] wrote: @DaphneR Its not her daughter who has done anything wrong so her photo being shown isn't bringing shame on her as it is the teacher and school that is in the wrong and the fact that they have shown there identities i think shows that they are serious and want something and @ thewallsays... she has tried what you suggested but got to the point where she felt they were taking the mick and if they werent going to take the issue seriously that she would make it public so that they have no choice but to do something about it and @madras i dont think thats a posed grumpy face this lady has had enough dont really think she feels like smiling and i say again if it us i dont think we'd have much to smile about either.[/p][/quote]No, its my child's photo thank you very much! Used to call a school a prison camp all because the child lost power. Simple. How disgusting. This is a prime example off using media in the wrong way. Sad that the NS even went there to accomodate such a pathetic story really. Deefea

6:40pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Deefea says...

DaphneR wrote:
Indeed we would, @lisamiller, (have something to say). But I would never go to the press or allow my child's name and picture to be published.
Thank you, my point entirely, my child's picture is on there. What a blatant cheek?! Not even supporting a cause I would ever feel worthy of, but to use against very decent people at a very decent school. There's your answer! She most definitely is at the wrong school!
[quote][p][bold]DaphneR[/bold] wrote: Indeed we would, @lisamiller, (have something to say). But I would never go to the press or allow my child's name and picture to be published.[/p][/quote]Thank you, my point entirely, my child's picture is on there. What a blatant cheek?! Not even supporting a cause I would ever feel worthy of, but to use against very decent people at a very decent school. There's your answer! She most definitely is at the wrong school! Deefea

9:03pm Wed 10 Oct 12

DaphneR says...

Oh dear, @Deefea, you sound as angry as I was yesterday! Putting it all into perspective, we know the sort of woman this mother is (I've come across them time and time again) and we know it's a ridiculous misrepresentation of the school. Pour yourself a glass of wine...today's news is tomorrow's chip paper. Or something!?
Oh dear, @Deefea, you sound as angry as I was yesterday! Putting it all into perspective, we know the sort of woman this mother is (I've come across them time and time again) and we know it's a ridiculous misrepresentation of the school. Pour yourself a glass of wine...today's news is tomorrow's chip paper. Or something!? DaphneR

9:08pm Wed 10 Oct 12

maria.babiie says...

this is so wrong, no teacher should do that to a child, i would feel terrified if that was me, and all children at that age has a mobile phone on them, the school says they keeping the child safe by taking this, that's so wrong, children should have a phone on them on way to and from school, what is something happens to them and they need help, how can they ring for help with no phone. that school should be told they can not do that.
this is so wrong, no teacher should do that to a child, i would feel terrified if that was me, and all children at that age has a mobile phone on them, the school says they keeping the child safe by taking this, that's so wrong, children should have a phone on them on way to and from school, what is something happens to them and they need help, how can they ring for help with no phone. that school should be told they can not do that. maria.babiie

9:55pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Deefea says...

DaphneR wrote:
Oh dear, @Deefea, you sound as angry as I was yesterday! Putting it all into perspective, we know the sort of woman this mother is (I've come across them time and time again) and we know it's a ridiculous misrepresentation of the school. Pour yourself a glass of wine...today's news is tomorrow's chip paper. Or something!?
Thank you, yes, I feel much calmer now. Shame there is so many people of the same calibre these days :( big sigh! :)
[quote][p][bold]DaphneR[/bold] wrote: Oh dear, @Deefea, you sound as angry as I was yesterday! Putting it all into perspective, we know the sort of woman this mother is (I've come across them time and time again) and we know it's a ridiculous misrepresentation of the school. Pour yourself a glass of wine...today's news is tomorrow's chip paper. Or something!?[/p][/quote]Thank you, yes, I feel much calmer now. Shame there is so many people of the same calibre these days :( big sigh! :) Deefea

10:26pm Wed 10 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

maria.babiie wrote:
this is so wrong, no teacher should do that to a child, i would feel terrified if that was me, and all children at that age has a mobile phone on them, the school says they keeping the child safe by taking this, that's so wrong, children should have a phone on them on way to and from school, what is something happens to them and they need help, how can they ring for help with no phone. that school should be told they can not do that.
Why is it so wrong?
If a child was thought to be carrying a knife at YOUR childs school would it be WRONG to search them?
Rules are rules,get a life!
[quote][p][bold]maria.babiie[/bold] wrote: this is so wrong, no teacher should do that to a child, i would feel terrified if that was me, and all children at that age has a mobile phone on them, the school says they keeping the child safe by taking this, that's so wrong, children should have a phone on them on way to and from school, what is something happens to them and they need help, how can they ring for help with no phone. that school should be told they can not do that.[/p][/quote]Why is it so wrong? If a child was thought to be carrying a knife at YOUR childs school would it be WRONG to search them? Rules are rules,get a life! lord righteous

10:26pm Wed 10 Oct 12

Invicta58 says...

maria.babiie wrote:
this is so wrong, no teacher should do that to a child, i would feel terrified if that was me, and all children at that age has a mobile phone on them, the school says they keeping the child safe by taking this, that's so wrong, children should have a phone on them on way to and from school, what is something happens to them and they need help, how can they ring for help with no phone. that school should be told they can not do that.
Let’s see if a male teacher really did search the girl before we jump to conclusions. As others have said it is very likely that having lost the argument regarding the phone the story is then twisted into one about an improper search.

If children really do need phones to make it home why not leave them at the office during teaching time? Why do they need phones during lessons? However did everyone now over 30 ever manage to get to and from school without mobiles?

When it comes to teaching mobile phones are the biggest distraction ever and this issue needs firmly dealing with. Schools are there to teach, not social clubs for kids. This appears to be a good school and needs supporting not knocking.
[quote][p][bold]maria.babiie[/bold] wrote: this is so wrong, no teacher should do that to a child, i would feel terrified if that was me, and all children at that age has a mobile phone on them, the school says they keeping the child safe by taking this, that's so wrong, children should have a phone on them on way to and from school, what is something happens to them and they need help, how can they ring for help with no phone. that school should be told they can not do that.[/p][/quote]Let’s see if a male teacher really did search the girl before we jump to conclusions. As others have said it is very likely that having lost the argument regarding the phone the story is then twisted into one about an improper search. If children really do need phones to make it home why not leave them at the office during teaching time? Why do they need phones during lessons? However did everyone now over 30 ever manage to get to and from school without mobiles? When it comes to teaching mobile phones are the biggest distraction ever and this issue needs firmly dealing with. Schools are there to teach, not social clubs for kids. This appears to be a good school and needs supporting not knocking. Invicta58

11:42pm Wed 10 Oct 12

higgstheboson says...

Newshopper, I am entirely disgusted at your framing of this non-story. You attended the GFS Matriculation/Celebr
ation Ceremony at which your photographer took the above shot of children performing Benjamin Zephaniah's poem Faceless. He's hardly known for nazi tendencies is he? So why use this photograph under the heading of 'prison camp'? You were surely rubbing your hands with glee deciding on the photo that depicted these young performers as Hitler youth. Not only this but you thereby belittle those who experienced the atrocities of German P.O.W camps by comarison with a school - utterly despicable! I wonder, how is it that you neglected to run the story for which the photograph was intended and in its correct context?

My daughter attends GFS and we are absolutely over the moon with not only the education she is receiving but also the extremely high standards of pastoral care. It's fair to say that the children adore each and every member of staff, who really do go above and beyond within their roles. There has been A LOT of work gone into the setting up of this, quite frankly, fantastic school and this is the thanks that all involve receive and when Greenwich is in such dire need of, what I am certain will be, an outstanding school. I would hate any parent/carer to be put off sending their child to GFS on the basis of this article at the time when prospective 2013 pupils are viewing the school. There are very valid reasons why children are not permitted to take mobile phones into school, of which above mother and daughter were most certainly aware; the Headmaster lays these out most precisely within the school website if any reader here wishes to read.

Yes the school has firm behavioural policies, is this not a good thing? Would you rather your child attended a school where learning and safety took second place to continual classroom disruptions? My own daughter comes home literally dancing with excitement each evening, full of stories from the day; each lesson planned to excite and engage and as a parent this is just the best I could ask for. She is yet to have one single lesson that she has found to be 'boring'. Speak to the remaining children at GFS, you'd be hard pushed to find a happier bunch. Unfortunately for herself, the young lady above appears to be the exception to the rule here. I pity her for losing out on her place in this quite brilliant school.
Newshopper, I am entirely disgusted at your framing of this non-story. You attended the GFS Matriculation/Celebr ation Ceremony at which your photographer took the above shot of children performing Benjamin Zephaniah's poem Faceless. He's hardly known for nazi tendencies is he? So why use this photograph under the heading of 'prison camp'? You were surely rubbing your hands with glee deciding on the photo that depicted these young performers as Hitler youth. Not only this but you thereby belittle those who experienced the atrocities of German P.O.W camps by comarison with a school - utterly despicable! I wonder, how is it that you neglected to run the story for which the photograph was intended and in its correct context? My daughter attends GFS and we are absolutely over the moon with not only the education she is receiving but also the extremely high standards of pastoral care. It's fair to say that the children adore each and every member of staff, who really do go above and beyond within their roles. There has been A LOT of work gone into the setting up of this, quite frankly, fantastic school and this is the thanks that all involve receive and when Greenwich is in such dire need of, what I am certain will be, an outstanding school. I would hate any parent/carer to be put off sending their child to GFS on the basis of this article at the time when prospective 2013 pupils are viewing the school. There are very valid reasons why children are not permitted to take mobile phones into school, of which above mother and daughter were most certainly aware; the Headmaster lays these out most precisely within the school website if any reader here wishes to read. Yes the school has firm behavioural policies, is this not a good thing? Would you rather your child attended a school where learning and safety took second place to continual classroom disruptions? My own daughter comes home literally dancing with excitement each evening, full of stories from the day; each lesson planned to excite and engage and as a parent this is just the best I could ask for. She is yet to have one single lesson that she has found to be 'boring'. Speak to the remaining children at GFS, you'd be hard pushed to find a happier bunch. Unfortunately for herself, the young lady above appears to be the exception to the rule here. I pity her for losing out on her place in this quite brilliant school. higgstheboson

12:00am Thu 11 Oct 12

higgstheboson says...

Deefea wrote:
As a parent of a child attending GFS, and one appearing in the cleverly depicted (but very wrong) photograph, taken at our children's Matriculation Ceremony; I am disgusted that the school would be represented in this way and as far as I can see it, there is no justification at all for the Newsshopper to abuse their privilege in the way that they have done with this issue. I did NOT at any time agree to the use of my son's photograph and will be seeking advice on the implications of this. Let me make this very clear, we chose this school on the pretence that discipline is very high on the agenda, which is very refreshing considering the reputation of other local schools; yes I did just confirm that there really was no other choice due to the lack of discipline in children elsewhere. We were met with detailed information, by the Head Teacher at GFS, whereby our son was clearly made aware of the rules that had been set, along with the reasons why. The biggest rule being that there will be no tolerance on mobile phones at all. There was also a school contractual consent form which parents and pupils were required to sign in agreement and we were specifically told that if you wish your child to carry a mobile phone or insist that they have it, then with due respect, this school is not for you.
How dare this parent, who would have had this information, still send their daughter to the school, intentionally breaking the rules and have the absolute cheek to write detrimental, unsupported rubbish just because her daughter was not allowed the phone and was subsequently caught breaking the rules!! Yes I think you are right Mrs Wells, your daughter does belong at one of the other schools as if this is your way of dealing with "communication" and in doing so, stirring up bad feeling for other parents, who are very pleased with what GFS have achieved so far with their equally loved children who DO NOT break the rules they signed up for, I suggest you move along.

As for the way in which I feel the photograph had been used, did you have the decency to explain the irony in the photograph? Did you enlighten all Newsshopper's readers that in fact this was a poem by Benjamin Zephaniah? Faceless? No, I should expect you were more proud of your golden opportunity to mock the efforts of GFS along with your depiction of the photograph and caption "Prison Camp". Very sad how you as a Newsspaper were invited to come along and see all of GFS' hard work, yet you have spoiled yourselves by backing a story that quite franjly is the reason this country is in the state it is and in need of schools like GFS!!!!!!!
Totally with you and agree wholeheartedly with each and every word.
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: As a parent of a child attending GFS, and one appearing in the cleverly depicted (but very wrong) photograph, taken at our children's Matriculation Ceremony; I am disgusted that the school would be represented in this way and as far as I can see it, there is no justification at all for the Newsshopper to abuse their privilege in the way that they have done with this issue. I did NOT at any time agree to the use of my son's photograph and will be seeking advice on the implications of this. Let me make this very clear, we chose this school on the pretence that discipline is very high on the agenda, which is very refreshing considering the reputation of other local schools; yes I did just confirm that there really was no other choice due to the lack of discipline in children elsewhere. We were met with detailed information, by the Head Teacher at GFS, whereby our son was clearly made aware of the rules that had been set, along with the reasons why. The biggest rule being that there will be no tolerance on mobile phones at all. There was also a school contractual consent form which parents and pupils were required to sign in agreement and we were specifically told that if you wish your child to carry a mobile phone or insist that they have it, then with due respect, this school is not for you. How dare this parent, who would have had this information, still send their daughter to the school, intentionally breaking the rules and have the absolute cheek to write detrimental, unsupported rubbish just because her daughter was not allowed the phone and was subsequently caught breaking the rules!! Yes I think you are right Mrs Wells, your daughter does belong at one of the other schools as if this is your way of dealing with "communication" and in doing so, stirring up bad feeling for other parents, who are very pleased with what GFS have achieved so far with their equally loved children who DO NOT break the rules they signed up for, I suggest you move along. As for the way in which I feel the photograph had been used, did you have the decency to explain the irony in the photograph? Did you enlighten all Newsshopper's readers that in fact this was a poem by Benjamin Zephaniah? Faceless? No, I should expect you were more proud of your golden opportunity to mock the efforts of GFS along with your depiction of the photograph and caption "Prison Camp". Very sad how you as a Newsspaper were invited to come along and see all of GFS' hard work, yet you have spoiled yourselves by backing a story that quite franjly is the reason this country is in the state it is and in need of schools like GFS!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Totally with you and agree wholeheartedly with each and every word. higgstheboson

2:19am Thu 11 Oct 12

london1234 says...

Virtual-Monster wrote:
The mother chose to send her child to this school and by default accepted the rules of that establishment.

The rule is no mobile phones. The child (obviously supported by her mother) broke the rule. The mother now bleats like a she is a victim.

Should the school be able to enforce its rules? Of course?

Time for the mother and child to go find another school methinks! Sooner the better for both parties.

Shame on the NS for even running this non story.
This mother signed the agreement that her child will not take a mobile to school. If she didn't break the agreement then the child wouldn't have got searched. Why go to the news paper? I wonder how much you got paid? My child goes to The Greenwich free sch & she really enjoys it. Yes I do worry about her not having her mobile to call me when she leaves school & to tell me she's on the bus but I have to abide by the GFS rules & the agreement which I signed. I always see kids crossing the roads not looking wear there going & nearly getting hit by a car cause they are too busy chatting on there mobiles. This school has diciplin, the teachers let the kids no they are in business & wants to see all the GFS pupils go far in there education. The mother can take her child to some other school if she wants were the kids are unruly & don't listen to the teachers & she can take her mobile then. Shame on you for going to news paper & putting your child's face & other pupils from GFS in there aswell without any of the parents permission. You have made the wrong move to do that.
[quote][p][bold]Virtual-Monster[/bold] wrote: The mother chose to send her child to this school and by default accepted the rules of that establishment. The rule is no mobile phones. The child (obviously supported by her mother) broke the rule. The mother now bleats like a she is a victim. Should the school be able to enforce its rules? Of course? Time for the mother and child to go find another school methinks! Sooner the better for both parties. Shame on the NS for even running this non story.[/p][/quote]This mother signed the agreement that her child will not take a mobile to school. If she didn't break the agreement then the child wouldn't have got searched. Why go to the news paper? I wonder how much you got paid? My child goes to The Greenwich free sch & she really enjoys it. Yes I do worry about her not having her mobile to call me when she leaves school & to tell me she's on the bus but I have to abide by the GFS rules & the agreement which I signed. I always see kids crossing the roads not looking wear there going & nearly getting hit by a car cause they are too busy chatting on there mobiles. This school has diciplin, the teachers let the kids no they are in business & wants to see all the GFS pupils go far in there education. The mother can take her child to some other school if she wants were the kids are unruly & don't listen to the teachers & she can take her mobile then. Shame on you for going to news paper & putting your child's face & other pupils from GFS in there aswell without any of the parents permission. You have made the wrong move to do that. london1234

9:44am Thu 11 Oct 12

Toots72 says...

My daughter attends the Greenwich Free School and LOVES it! The rules were made very clear from the start regarding mobile phones. If you didn't agree with them then it was your choice to send your child to a different school.
I am in awe of this school. As a parent I couldn't be more happy. The teachers are providing our children with an outstanding education from the very moment they stepthrough the GFS doors. They have rules that are
made very clear. If you break the rules there are consequences, very much as there are in the adult world. Discipline is important to children, they need boundaries.
I do not believe for one moment that any inappropriate 'patting' took place. If the child in question had not brought the mobile phone in to school then none of this would have happened. Let's turn this on its head and place the blame where it really should placed, on that of the parent. A parent who has signed a home/school agreement but who immediately allows her daughter to disregard school rules!
It seems to me that we have a disgruntled parent seeking attention.
My daughter attends the Greenwich Free School and LOVES it! The rules were made very clear from the start regarding mobile phones. If you didn't agree with them then it was your choice to send your child to a different school. I am in awe of this school. As a parent I couldn't be more happy. The teachers are providing our children with an outstanding education from the very moment they stepthrough the GFS doors. They have rules that are made very clear. If you break the rules there are consequences, very much as there are in the adult world. Discipline is important to children, they need boundaries. I do not believe for one moment that any inappropriate 'patting' took place. If the child in question had not brought the mobile phone in to school then none of this would have happened. Let's turn this on its head and place the blame where it really should placed, on that of the parent. A parent who has signed a home/school agreement but who immediately allows her daughter to disregard school rules! It seems to me that we have a disgruntled parent seeking attention. Toots72

10:08am Thu 11 Oct 12

Outandabout says...

This kid has had her phone confiscated and the school is likened to 'a prison camp'. I do hope Britney gets a better understanding and measure of history and historical events than her overreacting, attention seeking mum.
This kid has had her phone confiscated and the school is likened to 'a prison camp'. I do hope Britney gets a better understanding and measure of history and historical events than her overreacting, attention seeking mum. Outandabout

10:50am Thu 11 Oct 12

ztania97 says...

I believe the same rules should apply to everyone. My son attends GFS and I know everyone signed the agreement and rules were explained.

If one child takes phone to school, soon half of the school will be currying them. And it is a huge distraction, don't we know it?

I like the strict rules. Yes, in a first week my son was among those who received 3 strikes for uniform, but he learnt his lesson fast. Since then he remembers what he is supposed to do. It took me years just reminding him every day about his shirt, but they sorted it in GFS during first week! Thank you GFS!

"Prison" - what "prison"???? Children are free to speak up their mind, voice their opinions. One of the most popular activities in GFS is Debating classes.
I believe the same rules should apply to everyone. My son attends GFS and I know everyone signed the agreement and rules were explained. If one child takes phone to school, soon half of the school will be currying them. And it is a huge distraction, don't we know it? I like the strict rules. Yes, in a first week my son was among those who received 3 strikes for uniform, but he learnt his lesson fast. Since then he remembers what he is supposed to do. It took me years just reminding him every day about his shirt, but they sorted it in GFS during first week! Thank you GFS! "Prison" - what "prison"???? Children are free to speak up their mind, voice their opinions. One of the most popular activities in GFS is Debating classes. ztania97

11:26am Thu 11 Oct 12

the wall says...

ztania97 wrote:
I believe the same rules should apply to everyone. My son attends GFS and I know everyone signed the agreement and rules were explained. If one child takes phone to school, soon half of the school will be currying them. And it is a huge distraction, don't we know it? I like the strict rules. Yes, in a first week my son was among those who received 3 strikes for uniform, but he learnt his lesson fast. Since then he remembers what he is supposed to do. It took me years just reminding him every day about his shirt, but they sorted it in GFS during first week! Thank you GFS! "Prison" - what "prison"???? Children are free to speak up their mind, voice their opinions. One of the most popular activities in GFS is Debating classes.
Currying ? Would that be the new Nokia naan on the tandoori tariff.



The little chubstar could do with a few weeks in japanese prison camp.
[quote][p][bold]ztania97[/bold] wrote: I believe the same rules should apply to everyone. My son attends GFS and I know everyone signed the agreement and rules were explained. If one child takes phone to school, soon half of the school will be currying them. And it is a huge distraction, don't we know it? I like the strict rules. Yes, in a first week my son was among those who received 3 strikes for uniform, but he learnt his lesson fast. Since then he remembers what he is supposed to do. It took me years just reminding him every day about his shirt, but they sorted it in GFS during first week! Thank you GFS! "Prison" - what "prison"???? Children are free to speak up their mind, voice their opinions. One of the most popular activities in GFS is Debating classes.[/p][/quote]Currying ? Would that be the new Nokia naan on the tandoori tariff. The little chubstar could do with a few weeks in japanese prison camp. the wall

11:26am Thu 11 Oct 12

greenwichman says...

Has everybody noticed that the photos of the GFS Matriculation evening have now been removed ? Parent power in action ! Terrific performance from the GFS parents.
Has everybody noticed that the photos of the GFS Matriculation evening have now been removed ? Parent power in action ! Terrific performance from the GFS parents. greenwichman

12:04pm Thu 11 Oct 12

ztania97 says...

the wall wrote:
ztania97 wrote: I believe the same rules should apply to everyone. My son attends GFS and I know everyone signed the agreement and rules were explained. If one child takes phone to school, soon half of the school will be currying them. And it is a huge distraction, don't we know it? I like the strict rules. Yes, in a first week my son was among those who received 3 strikes for uniform, but he learnt his lesson fast. Since then he remembers what he is supposed to do. It took me years just reminding him every day about his shirt, but they sorted it in GFS during first week! Thank you GFS! "Prison" - what "prison"???? Children are free to speak up their mind, voice their opinions. One of the most popular activities in GFS is Debating classes.
Currying ? Would that be the new Nokia naan on the tandoori tariff. The little chubstar could do with a few weeks in japanese prison camp.
Correction - "carrying" of course )))

Thanks for pointing out !
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ztania97[/bold] wrote: I believe the same rules should apply to everyone. My son attends GFS and I know everyone signed the agreement and rules were explained. If one child takes phone to school, soon half of the school will be currying them. And it is a huge distraction, don't we know it? I like the strict rules. Yes, in a first week my son was among those who received 3 strikes for uniform, but he learnt his lesson fast. Since then he remembers what he is supposed to do. It took me years just reminding him every day about his shirt, but they sorted it in GFS during first week! Thank you GFS! "Prison" - what "prison"???? Children are free to speak up their mind, voice their opinions. One of the most popular activities in GFS is Debating classes.[/p][/quote]Currying ? Would that be the new Nokia naan on the tandoori tariff. The little chubstar could do with a few weeks in japanese prison camp.[/p][/quote]Correction - "carrying" of course ))) Thanks for pointing out ! ztania97

12:13pm Thu 11 Oct 12

phoenixrising1 says...

This young lady is already well known to parents and students of GFS as a school non-attender , which she already was before she came to GFS . She wont be missed as she consistently disrupts the learning environment and has even had family members threatening students outside the school gates .

Im pleased that the school are enforcing the rules as thats the whole reason I sent my child there . Parents have to sign a contract agreeing to the school rules , if you dont agree , dont send them . I would recommend GFS to any parent who is serious about their childs education , and as someone who works in education I can honestly say that I am one hundred percent happy with GFS .

Furthermore , I would be concerned if this students rule breaking was not tackled , if the school dont they are allowing and re-inforcing her challenging behaviour, by holding the line they are meeting their responsibilities to her and the other students .

Also , I wish that newspapers would do their research before writing these articles as it is factually incorrect . GFS is the third school in the area to implement a no mobile phone policy , as a professional jounalist , how could you say " I believe " ? Can you not find out ? Surely thats your job ?

The newshopper has really gone down in my already low estimation .
This young lady is already well known to parents and students of GFS as a school non-attender , which she already was before she came to GFS . She wont be missed as she consistently disrupts the learning environment and has even had family members threatening students outside the school gates . Im pleased that the school are enforcing the rules as thats the whole reason I sent my child there . Parents have to sign a contract agreeing to the school rules , if you dont agree , dont send them . I would recommend GFS to any parent who is serious about their childs education , and as someone who works in education I can honestly say that I am one hundred percent happy with GFS . Furthermore , I would be concerned if this students rule breaking was not tackled , if the school dont they are allowing and re-inforcing her challenging behaviour, by holding the line they are meeting their responsibilities to her and the other students . Also , I wish that newspapers would do their research before writing these articles as it is factually incorrect . GFS is the third school in the area to implement a no mobile phone policy , as a professional jounalist , how could you say " I believe " ? Can you not find out ? Surely thats your job ? The newshopper has really gone down in my already low estimation . phoenixrising1

12:23pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

NS I demand an article with headline "Apology to GFS". I will campaign to see a public apology printed in the next distribution of your paper. I, being that my son was plastered on the image depicting Hitler, require an apology from you to my son, my family and the hard working school. You owe this at the very least.
NS I demand an article with headline "Apology to GFS". I will campaign to see a public apology printed in the next distribution of your paper. I, being that my son was plastered on the image depicting Hitler, require an apology from you to my son, my family and the hard working school. You owe this at the very least. Deefea

12:23pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

NS I demand an article with headline "Apology to GFS". I will campaign to see a public apology printed in the next distribution of your paper. I, being that my son was plastered on the image depicting Hitler, require an apology from you to my son, my family and the hard working school. You owe this at the very least.
NS I demand an article with headline "Apology to GFS". I will campaign to see a public apology printed in the next distribution of your paper. I, being that my son was plastered on the image depicting Hitler, require an apology from you to my son, my family and the hard working school. You owe this at the very least. Deefea

12:23pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

NS I demand an article with headline "Apology to GFS". I will campaign to see a public apology printed in the next distribution of your paper. I, being that my son was plastered on the image depicting Hitler, require an apology from you to my son, my family and the hard working school. You owe this at the very least.
NS I demand an article with headline "Apology to GFS". I will campaign to see a public apology printed in the next distribution of your paper. I, being that my son was plastered on the image depicting Hitler, require an apology from you to my son, my family and the hard working school. You owe this at the very least. Deefea

12:23pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

NS I demand an article with headline "Apology to GFS". I will campaign to see a public apology printed in the next distribution of your paper. I, being that my son was plastered on the image depicting Hitler, require an apology from you to my son, my family and the hard working school. You owe this at the very least.
NS I demand an article with headline "Apology to GFS". I will campaign to see a public apology printed in the next distribution of your paper. I, being that my son was plastered on the image depicting Hitler, require an apology from you to my son, my family and the hard working school. You owe this at the very least. Deefea

12:23pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

NS I demand an article with headline "Apology to GFS". I will campaign to see a public apology printed in the next distribution of your paper. I, being that my son was plastered on the image depicting Hitler, require an apology from you to my son, my family and the hard working school. You owe this at the very least.
NS I demand an article with headline "Apology to GFS". I will campaign to see a public apology printed in the next distribution of your paper. I, being that my son was plastered on the image depicting Hitler, require an apology from you to my son, my family and the hard working school. You owe this at the very least. Deefea

12:30pm Thu 11 Oct 12

higgstheboson says...

greenwichman wrote:
Has everybody noticed that the photos of the GFS Matriculation evening have now been removed ? Parent power in action ! Terrific performance from the GFS parents.
Thank-you greenwich man, I hadn't noticed. We are merely speaking up for what we believe. However, I have just looked at the e-edition of this weeks News Shopper and see that the offensive photograph is blown up to a large size on the front page (or page 3 if you include the advertisements taking up the first two. How many households in the borough will the physical edition be delivered to? You must surely now at least begin to see how badly reported and innacurate this 'story' is?
http://edition.pages
uite-professional.co
.uk/launch.aspx?refe
rral=other&refresh=b
13D0Wk4Rp80&PBID=7f7
1eb26-0342-44a2-a99a
-9cfb20c0530a&skip=
I am now furious that you have depicted this school and it's pupils this way! I put it to the News Shopper that as you appear to have seen the error of your ways and removed the photograph online, and have furthemore read the contrasting views of a number of parents here, that you now consider a retraction and apology in next weeks edition of your paper. Perhaps also with the same amount of front page space given over to everything positive that is is being said about this school. What say News Shopper? The very least you could do I would think!
[quote][p][bold]greenwichman[/bold] wrote: Has everybody noticed that the photos of the GFS Matriculation evening have now been removed ? Parent power in action ! Terrific performance from the GFS parents.[/p][/quote]Thank-you greenwich man, I hadn't noticed. We are merely speaking up for what we believe. However, I have just looked at the e-edition of this weeks News Shopper and see that the offensive photograph is blown up to a large size on the front page (or page 3 if you include the advertisements taking up the first two. How many households in the borough will the physical edition be delivered to? You must surely now at least begin to see how badly reported and innacurate this 'story' is? http://edition.pages uite-professional.co .uk/launch.aspx?refe rral=other&refresh=b 13D0Wk4Rp80&PBID=7f7 1eb26-0342-44a2-a99a -9cfb20c0530a&skip= I am now furious that you have depicted this school and it's pupils this way! I put it to the News Shopper that as you appear to have seen the error of your ways and removed the photograph online, and have furthemore read the contrasting views of a number of parents here, that you now consider a retraction and apology in next weeks edition of your paper. Perhaps also with the same amount of front page space given over to everything positive that is is being said about this school. What say News Shopper? The very least you could do I would think! higgstheboson

12:30pm Thu 11 Oct 12

higgstheboson says...

greenwichman wrote:
Has everybody noticed that the photos of the GFS Matriculation evening have now been removed ? Parent power in action ! Terrific performance from the GFS parents.
Thank-you greenwich man, I hadn't noticed. We are merely speaking up for what we believe. However, I have just looked at the e-edition of this weeks News Shopper and see that the offensive photograph is blown up to a large size on the front page (or page 3 if you include the advertisements taking up the first two. How many households in the borough will the physical edition be delivered to? You must surely now at least begin to see how badly reported and innacurate this 'story' is?
http://edition.pages
uite-professional.co
.uk/launch.aspx?refe
rral=other&refresh=b
13D0Wk4Rp80&PBID=7f7
1eb26-0342-44a2-a99a
-9cfb20c0530a&skip=
I am now furious that you have depicted this school and it's pupils this way! I put it to the News Shopper that as you appear to have seen the error of your ways and removed the photograph online, and have furthemore read the contrasting views of a number of parents here, that you now consider a retraction and apology in next weeks edition of your paper. Perhaps also with the same amount of front page space given over to everything positive that is is being said about this school. What say News Shopper? The very least you could do I would think!
[quote][p][bold]greenwichman[/bold] wrote: Has everybody noticed that the photos of the GFS Matriculation evening have now been removed ? Parent power in action ! Terrific performance from the GFS parents.[/p][/quote]Thank-you greenwich man, I hadn't noticed. We are merely speaking up for what we believe. However, I have just looked at the e-edition of this weeks News Shopper and see that the offensive photograph is blown up to a large size on the front page (or page 3 if you include the advertisements taking up the first two. How many households in the borough will the physical edition be delivered to? You must surely now at least begin to see how badly reported and innacurate this 'story' is? http://edition.pages uite-professional.co .uk/launch.aspx?refe rral=other&refresh=b 13D0Wk4Rp80&PBID=7f7 1eb26-0342-44a2-a99a -9cfb20c0530a&skip= I am now furious that you have depicted this school and it's pupils this way! I put it to the News Shopper that as you appear to have seen the error of your ways and removed the photograph online, and have furthemore read the contrasting views of a number of parents here, that you now consider a retraction and apology in next weeks edition of your paper. Perhaps also with the same amount of front page space given over to everything positive that is is being said about this school. What say News Shopper? The very least you could do I would think! higgstheboson

12:31pm Thu 11 Oct 12

higgstheboson says...

Deefea wrote:
NS I demand an article with headline "Apology to GFS". I will campaign to see a public apology printed in the next distribution of your paper. I, being that my son was plastered on the image depicting Hitler, require an apology from you to my son, my family and the hard working school. You owe this at the very least.
ABSOLUTELY!
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: NS I demand an article with headline "Apology to GFS". I will campaign to see a public apology printed in the next distribution of your paper. I, being that my son was plastered on the image depicting Hitler, require an apology from you to my son, my family and the hard working school. You owe this at the very least.[/p][/quote]ABSOLUTELY! higgstheboson

12:33pm Thu 11 Oct 12

higgstheboson says...

greenwichman - my apologies if it seemed that some of my last comment was directed at you; it certainly wasn't meant to be ..... due to angry typing i'm afraid :)
greenwichman - my apologies if it seemed that some of my last comment was directed at you; it certainly wasn't meant to be ..... due to angry typing i'm afraid :) higgstheboson

12:36pm Thu 11 Oct 12

the wall says...

Deefea wrote:
NS I demand an article with headline "Apology to GFS". I will campaign to see a public apology printed in the next distribution of your paper. I, being that my son was plastered on the image depicting Hitler, require an apology from you to my son, my family and the hard working school. You owe this at the very least.
LOL really? Go get a lawyer and contact the paper direct.
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: NS I demand an article with headline "Apology to GFS". I will campaign to see a public apology printed in the next distribution of your paper. I, being that my son was plastered on the image depicting Hitler, require an apology from you to my son, my family and the hard working school. You owe this at the very least.[/p][/quote]LOL really? Go get a lawyer and contact the paper direct. the wall

12:37pm Thu 11 Oct 12

phoenixrising1 says...

Deefea , I support your demand for an apology from NS , I can feel a petition campaign coming on . . .

Is the NS in any way funded or supported by the local authority by any chance ? They were less than enthusiastic about GFS , probably because it would make their own schools , which are some of the worst performing in the country ( check performance tables by Borough if you dont believe me ) look as bad as they actually are .

In a way this article is actually good publicity for GFS , as the parent and child in question are quite clearly Jeremy Kyle material , and the comments posted show overwhelming admiration and support for the school .

Go GFS !
Deefea , I support your demand for an apology from NS , I can feel a petition campaign coming on . . . Is the NS in any way funded or supported by the local authority by any chance ? They were less than enthusiastic about GFS , probably because it would make their own schools , which are some of the worst performing in the country ( check performance tables by Borough if you dont believe me ) look as bad as they actually are . In a way this article is actually good publicity for GFS , as the parent and child in question are quite clearly Jeremy Kyle material , and the comments posted show overwhelming admiration and support for the school . Go GFS ! phoenixrising1

12:41pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

higgstheboson wrote:
greenwichman wrote:
Has everybody noticed that the photos of the GFS Matriculation evening have now been removed ? Parent power in action ! Terrific performance from the GFS parents.
Thank-you greenwich man, I hadn't noticed. We are merely speaking up for what we believe. However, I have just looked at the e-edition of this weeks News Shopper and see that the offensive photograph is blown up to a large size on the front page (or page 3 if you include the advertisements taking up the first two. How many households in the borough will the physical edition be delivered to? You must surely now at least begin to see how badly reported and innacurate this 'story' is?
http://edition.pages

uite-professional.co

.uk/launch.aspx?refe

rral=other&refre
sh=b
13D0Wk4Rp80&PBID
=7f7
1eb26-0342-44a2-a99a

-9cfb20c0530a&sk
ip=
I am now furious that you have depicted this school and it's pupils this way! I put it to the News Shopper that as you appear to have seen the error of your ways and removed the photograph online, and have furthemore read the contrasting views of a number of parents here, that you now consider a retraction and apology in next weeks edition of your paper. Perhaps also with the same amount of front page space given over to everything positive that is is being said about this school. What say News Shopper? The very least you could do I would think!
I totally agree with your posts, I was absolutely mortified at seeing my son, and his friends photograph displayed in the way it has been. Thank you :)
[quote][p][bold]higgstheboson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenwichman[/bold] wrote: Has everybody noticed that the photos of the GFS Matriculation evening have now been removed ? Parent power in action ! Terrific performance from the GFS parents.[/p][/quote]Thank-you greenwich man, I hadn't noticed. We are merely speaking up for what we believe. However, I have just looked at the e-edition of this weeks News Shopper and see that the offensive photograph is blown up to a large size on the front page (or page 3 if you include the advertisements taking up the first two. How many households in the borough will the physical edition be delivered to? You must surely now at least begin to see how badly reported and innacurate this 'story' is? http://edition.pages uite-professional.co .uk/launch.aspx?refe rral=other&refre sh=b 13D0Wk4Rp80&PBID =7f7 1eb26-0342-44a2-a99a -9cfb20c0530a&sk ip= I am now furious that you have depicted this school and it's pupils this way! I put it to the News Shopper that as you appear to have seen the error of your ways and removed the photograph online, and have furthemore read the contrasting views of a number of parents here, that you now consider a retraction and apology in next weeks edition of your paper. Perhaps also with the same amount of front page space given over to everything positive that is is being said about this school. What say News Shopper? The very least you could do I would think![/p][/quote]I totally agree with your posts, I was absolutely mortified at seeing my son, and his friends photograph displayed in the way it has been. Thank you :) Deefea

12:43pm Thu 11 Oct 12

ksc says...

Believe it or not (and many people won't), not every single man on earth would be completely taken over by an uncontrollable chronic urge to become sexually aroused when patting down a child, I think there are maybe one or two men left somewhere in the world who don't associate children with sex, and would see patting down a child as something that is necessary to ensure that the child is safe. I as a parent, do understand that you have to protect your offspring, but we're not all named Jimmy.
Believe it or not (and many people won't), not every single man on earth would be completely taken over by an uncontrollable chronic urge to become sexually aroused when patting down a child, I think there are maybe one or two men left somewhere in the world who don't associate children with sex, and would see patting down a child as something that is necessary to ensure that the child is safe. I as a parent, do understand that you have to protect your offspring, but we're not all named Jimmy. ksc

12:43pm Thu 11 Oct 12

phoenixrising1 says...

Deefea , I support your demand for an apology from NS , I can feel a petition campaign coming on . . .

Is the NS in any way funded or supported by the local authority by any chance ? They were less than enthusiastic about GFS , probably because it would make their own schools , which are some of the worst performing in the country ( check performance tables by Borough if you dont believe me ) look as bad as they actually are .

In a way this article is actually good publicity for GFS , as the parent and child in question are quite clearly Jeremy Kyle material , and the comments posted show overwhelming admiration and support for the school .

Go GFS !
Deefea , I support your demand for an apology from NS , I can feel a petition campaign coming on . . . Is the NS in any way funded or supported by the local authority by any chance ? They were less than enthusiastic about GFS , probably because it would make their own schools , which are some of the worst performing in the country ( check performance tables by Borough if you dont believe me ) look as bad as they actually are . In a way this article is actually good publicity for GFS , as the parent and child in question are quite clearly Jeremy Kyle material , and the comments posted show overwhelming admiration and support for the school . Go GFS ! phoenixrising1

12:49pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

the wall wrote:
Deefea wrote:
NS I demand an article with headline "Apology to GFS". I will campaign to see a public apology printed in the next distribution of your paper. I, being that my son was plastered on the image depicting Hitler, require an apology from you to my son, my family and the hard working school. You owe this at the very least.
LOL really? Go get a lawyer and contact the paper direct.
Very funny @ The Wall! Some needed humour I suppose! But actually I have contacted someone in the know thank you!
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: NS I demand an article with headline "Apology to GFS". I will campaign to see a public apology printed in the next distribution of your paper. I, being that my son was plastered on the image depicting Hitler, require an apology from you to my son, my family and the hard working school. You owe this at the very least.[/p][/quote]LOL really? Go get a lawyer and contact the paper direct.[/p][/quote]Very funny @ The Wall! Some needed humour I suppose! But actually I have contacted someone in the know thank you! Deefea

12:51pm Thu 11 Oct 12

greenwichman says...

Higgstheboson - no offence taken ! I'm with you 100%

I've just taken a screen shot of the front page of the News Shopper E-Edition. Can you upload an image here ?
Higgstheboson - no offence taken ! I'm with you 100% I've just taken a screen shot of the front page of the News Shopper E-Edition. Can you upload an image here ? greenwichman

12:51pm Thu 11 Oct 12

greenwichman says...

Higgstheboson - no offence taken ! I'm with you 100%

I've just taken a screen shot of the front page of the News Shopper E-Edition. Can you upload an image here ?
Higgstheboson - no offence taken ! I'm with you 100% I've just taken a screen shot of the front page of the News Shopper E-Edition. Can you upload an image here ? greenwichman

12:54pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

greenwichman wrote:
Higgstheboson - no offence taken ! I'm with you 100%

I've just taken a screen shot of the front page of the News Shopper E-Edition. Can you upload an image here ?
Could you post the link please?
Thanks :)
[quote][p][bold]greenwichman[/bold] wrote: Higgstheboson - no offence taken ! I'm with you 100% I've just taken a screen shot of the front page of the News Shopper E-Edition. Can you upload an image here ?[/p][/quote]Could you post the link please? Thanks :) Deefea

12:54pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

greenwichman wrote:
Higgstheboson - no offence taken ! I'm with you 100%

I've just taken a screen shot of the front page of the News Shopper E-Edition. Can you upload an image here ?
Could you post the link please?
Thanks :)
[quote][p][bold]greenwichman[/bold] wrote: Higgstheboson - no offence taken ! I'm with you 100% I've just taken a screen shot of the front page of the News Shopper E-Edition. Can you upload an image here ?[/p][/quote]Could you post the link please? Thanks :) Deefea

12:54pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

greenwichman wrote:
Higgstheboson - no offence taken ! I'm with you 100%

I've just taken a screen shot of the front page of the News Shopper E-Edition. Can you upload an image here ?
Could you post the link please?
Thanks :)
[quote][p][bold]greenwichman[/bold] wrote: Higgstheboson - no offence taken ! I'm with you 100% I've just taken a screen shot of the front page of the News Shopper E-Edition. Can you upload an image here ?[/p][/quote]Could you post the link please? Thanks :) Deefea

12:55pm Thu 11 Oct 12

higgstheboson says...

thanks again greenwichman. i'd imagine you'd need to upload the image to photobucket or some such? am i correct in thinking the e-edition to be identical to the physical paper edition? most annoyin if so.

News Shopper, we know that you are reading these comments, i believe it is time for your response.
thanks again greenwichman. i'd imagine you'd need to upload the image to photobucket or some such? am i correct in thinking the e-edition to be identical to the physical paper edition? most annoyin if so. News Shopper, we know that you are reading these comments, i believe it is time for your response. higgstheboson

12:56pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

I am very sorry my posts seem to be duplicating! Apologies! It wasn't angry typing I promise!
I am very sorry my posts seem to be duplicating! Apologies! It wasn't angry typing I promise! Deefea

1:07pm Thu 11 Oct 12

higgstheboson says...

Deefea wrote:
I am very sorry my posts seem to be duplicating! Apologies! It wasn't angry typing I promise!
mine too (although i do confess to some angry key bashing) ...much rather them duplicated than deleted though hey :) ....will back your campaign if it needs to go ahead, as will many others as you know
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: I am very sorry my posts seem to be duplicating! Apologies! It wasn't angry typing I promise![/p][/quote]mine too (although i do confess to some angry key bashing) ...much rather them duplicated than deleted though hey :) ....will back your campaign if it needs to go ahead, as will many others as you know higgstheboson

1:16pm Thu 11 Oct 12

higgstheboson says...

phoenixrising1 wrote:
Deefea , I support your demand for an apology from NS , I can feel a petition campaign coming on . . .

Is the NS in any way funded or supported by the local authority by any chance ? They were less than enthusiastic about GFS , probably because it would make their own schools , which are some of the worst performing in the country ( check performance tables by Borough if you dont believe me ) look as bad as they actually are .

In a way this article is actually good publicity for GFS , as the parent and child in question are quite clearly Jeremy Kyle material , and the comments posted show overwhelming admiration and support for the school .

Go GFS !
I think third from bottom borough in London last time I read? you'd think a vibrant new school for local pupils would be welcomed wouldn't you.

It does seem odd that although they sent a photographer, they chose not to report the matriculation ceremony...but then used a photograph from the same to manipulate a negative story. giving the red tops a run for their money with that sensationalist headline :/
[quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: Deefea , I support your demand for an apology from NS , I can feel a petition campaign coming on . . . Is the NS in any way funded or supported by the local authority by any chance ? They were less than enthusiastic about GFS , probably because it would make their own schools , which are some of the worst performing in the country ( check performance tables by Borough if you dont believe me ) look as bad as they actually are . In a way this article is actually good publicity for GFS , as the parent and child in question are quite clearly Jeremy Kyle material , and the comments posted show overwhelming admiration and support for the school . Go GFS ![/p][/quote]I think third from bottom borough in London last time I read? you'd think a vibrant new school for local pupils would be welcomed wouldn't you. It does seem odd that although they sent a photographer, they chose not to report the matriculation ceremony...but then used a photograph from the same to manipulate a negative story. giving the red tops a run for their money with that sensationalist headline :/ higgstheboson

1:30pm Thu 11 Oct 12

greenwichman says...

deefea higgstheboson

try this

http://pages.cdn.pag
esuite.com/a/9/a92e0
a74-37da-4b3b-b5ed-7
921a5e969e0/page.pdf
deefea higgstheboson try this http://pages.cdn.pag esuite.com/a/9/a92e0 a74-37da-4b3b-b5ed-7 921a5e969e0/page.pdf greenwichman

1:31pm Thu 11 Oct 12

mumofmany ;) says...

Hi all i would just like to say that my child attends GFS i clearly remember the head and deputy head telling both me and my child the rules about mobile phones at our first meeting. We walked away with a clear understanding that GFS was going to take a very hard line on all rule breakers at their school. Disciplining rule breakers is something that some schools/parents are very scared of doing now days and i for one applaud GFS for expecting children and parents to stick by the rules they have set. While i understand this mothers distress at her child being searched my a teacher, i can not help but feel that this mother also has a part to play in what happened, as she KNEW the rules and still allowed the girl to take her phone into school therefore encouraging her to feel she was above the rules which the other 90+ children are following or learning to follow. Also i would like to add that all these other 90+ children walk home past wooded areas at the same time to get home. I see many children being collected and dropped off to gfs every day by parents who worry about their children also!! Many children have a group of friends they travel home with also, i have myself seen teachers standing with the children at the bus stop to make sure they safely board the bus home. There are many options that this family could of looked at for her to travel home safely. Instead they have chosen to go to the newspaper and bad mouth gfs. Obviously this was the easy option rather than following the rules that were clearly explained at the start. My childs confidence has improved ten fold since starting at GFS and they are extremely happy there. I and many other parents do not have one regret about sending our children there. I would like to add that my child is no angel and has had quite a few detentions since starting GFS but if they followed the rules, harsh or not they wouldn't be getting a detention. This country has to may unruly children who's parents let them break rules and then whine about the consequences. My advice is if you are looking for a school who deals in tough love and you want your child to be respectful, disciplined and do well in the future then send them to GFS who will teach them to respect themselves and others. If not the send them to another school as we don't want your childs bad behaviour or lack of respect for rules and teachers effecting our childrens education.
Hi all i would just like to say that my child attends GFS i clearly remember the head and deputy head telling both me and my child the rules about mobile phones at our first meeting. We walked away with a clear understanding that GFS was going to take a very hard line on all rule breakers at their school. Disciplining rule breakers is something that some schools/parents are very scared of doing now days and i for one applaud GFS for expecting children and parents to stick by the rules they have set. While i understand this mothers distress at her child being searched my a teacher, i can not help but feel that this mother also has a part to play in what happened, as she KNEW the rules and still allowed the girl to take her phone into school therefore encouraging her to feel she was above the rules which the other 90+ children are following or learning to follow. Also i would like to add that all these other 90+ children walk home past wooded areas at the same time to get home. I see many children being collected and dropped off to gfs every day by parents who worry about their children also!! Many children have a group of friends they travel home with also, i have myself seen teachers standing with the children at the bus stop to make sure they safely board the bus home. There are many options that this family could of looked at for her to travel home safely. Instead they have chosen to go to the newspaper and bad mouth gfs. Obviously this was the easy option rather than following the rules that were clearly explained at the start. My childs confidence has improved ten fold since starting at GFS and they are extremely happy there. I and many other parents do not have one regret about sending our children there. I would like to add that my child is no angel and has had quite a few detentions since starting GFS but if they followed the rules, harsh or not they wouldn't be getting a detention. This country has to may unruly children who's parents let them break rules and then whine about the consequences. My advice is if you are looking for a school who deals in tough love and you want your child to be respectful, disciplined and do well in the future then send them to GFS who will teach them to respect themselves and others. If not the send them to another school as we don't want your childs bad behaviour or lack of respect for rules and teachers effecting our childrens education. mumofmany ;)

1:37pm Thu 11 Oct 12

madeinlondon says...

Absolutely outrageous reporting from the NS.

1. Is it really news?

2. Using the picture of children not involved in the story is shocking.

3. The mother of this child obviously needs some rules set in place in and out of the school - why would any child be allowed to wear that much make up as an 11 year old?

4. I have heard nothing but amazing things about this school! Granted, I have no children - but my neighbours child goes here and says nothing but great things about the place.

People like Ms Wells are obviously trying to get bad press for the school and again echoing other people's comments - should get used to the rules or bog off.

An apology to all parents for the picture used and an even bigger apology to the school should be issued.
Absolutely outrageous reporting from the NS. 1. Is it really news? 2. Using the picture of children not involved in the story is shocking. 3. The mother of this child obviously needs some rules set in place in and out of the school - why would any child be allowed to wear that much make up as an 11 year old? 4. I have heard nothing but amazing things about this school! Granted, I have no children - but my neighbours child goes here and says nothing but great things about the place. People like Ms Wells are obviously trying to get bad press for the school and again echoing other people's comments - should get used to the rules or bog off. An apology to all parents for the picture used and an even bigger apology to the school should be issued. madeinlondon

2:00pm Thu 11 Oct 12

higgstheboson says...

greenwichman wrote:
deefea higgstheboson

try this

http://pages.cdn.pag

esuite.com/a/9/a92e0

a74-37da-4b3b-b5ed-7

921a5e969e0/page.pdf
hi, link not working for me
[quote][p][bold]greenwichman[/bold] wrote: deefea higgstheboson try this http://pages.cdn.pag esuite.com/a/9/a92e0 a74-37da-4b3b-b5ed-7 921a5e969e0/page.pdf[/p][/quote]hi, link not working for me higgstheboson

2:05pm Thu 11 Oct 12

PaulErith says...

maria.babiie wrote:
this is so wrong, no teacher should do that to a child, i would feel terrified if that was me, and all children at that age has a mobile phone on them, the school says they keeping the child safe by taking this, that's so wrong, children should have a phone on them on way to and from school, what is something happens to them and they need help, how can they ring for help with no phone. that school should be told they can not do that.
A mobile is not a necessity for anyone - certainly not a school kid. Me and all my mates used to get to and from school without one. Never had an issue. Fair play to the school.
[quote][p][bold]maria.babiie[/bold] wrote: this is so wrong, no teacher should do that to a child, i would feel terrified if that was me, and all children at that age has a mobile phone on them, the school says they keeping the child safe by taking this, that's so wrong, children should have a phone on them on way to and from school, what is something happens to them and they need help, how can they ring for help with no phone. that school should be told they can not do that.[/p][/quote]A mobile is not a necessity for anyone - certainly not a school kid. Me and all my mates used to get to and from school without one. Never had an issue. Fair play to the school. PaulErith

2:10pm Thu 11 Oct 12

madeinlondon says...

higgstheboson wrote:
greenwichman wrote:
deefea higgstheboson

try this

http://pages.cdn.pag


esuite.com/a/9/a92e0


a74-37da-4b3b-b5ed-7


921a5e969e0/page.pdf
hi, link not working for me
http://pages.cdn.pag
esuite.com/a/9/a92e0
a74-37da-4b3b-b5ed-7
921a5e969e0/page.pdf


Is working for me! :-)
[quote][p][bold]higgstheboson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]greenwichman[/bold] wrote: deefea higgstheboson try this http://pages.cdn.pag esuite.com/a/9/a92e0 a74-37da-4b3b-b5ed-7 921a5e969e0/page.pdf[/p][/quote]hi, link not working for me[/p][/quote]http://pages.cdn.pag esuite.com/a/9/a92e0 a74-37da-4b3b-b5ed-7 921a5e969e0/page.pdf Is working for me! :-) madeinlondon

2:17pm Thu 11 Oct 12

phoenixrising1 says...

I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs .

Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ).

Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ?

I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy .

The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .
I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied . phoenixrising1

2:32pm Thu 11 Oct 12

the wall says...

phoenixrising1 wrote:
I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .
Have none of you women got jobs ?
[quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .[/p][/quote]Have none of you women got jobs ? the wall

3:22pm Thu 11 Oct 12

DaphneR says...

OK, now my blood is boiling. I have just spoken to an ineffective man at the New Shopper to complain about the image of the children being used inappropriately (my son is one of them). His name is Dan Keel and when I told him I found it really offensive (being half jewish) that the paper has used the picture of the children interpreting a poem at the matriculation ceremony as Hitler youth he just said he was "sorry but they have to use photos to best represent the story". I asked him how this photo represented the story of a narrow minded, rule breaking mother and her child and he couldn't answer me.
Let them publish whatever they want in the paper, just not pictures of my child wrongly represented.
Not sure what I should do now?
OK, now my blood is boiling. I have just spoken to an ineffective man at the New Shopper to complain about the image of the children being used inappropriately (my son is one of them). His name is Dan Keel and when I told him I found it really offensive (being half jewish) that the paper has used the picture of the children interpreting a poem at the matriculation ceremony as Hitler youth he just said he was "sorry but they have to use photos to best represent the story". I asked him how this photo represented the story of a narrow minded, rule breaking mother and her child and he couldn't answer me. Let them publish whatever they want in the paper, just not pictures of my child wrongly represented. Not sure what I should do now? DaphneR

3:24pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

greenwichman wrote:
deefea higgstheboson

try this

http://pages.cdn.pag

esuite.com/a/9/a92e0

a74-37da-4b3b-b5ed-7

921a5e969e0/page.pdf
Thank you, was able to see it and print screen.
[quote][p][bold]greenwichman[/bold] wrote: deefea higgstheboson try this http://pages.cdn.pag esuite.com/a/9/a92e0 a74-37da-4b3b-b5ed-7 921a5e969e0/page.pdf[/p][/quote]Thank you, was able to see it and print screen. Deefea

3:56pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

DaphneR wrote:
OK, now my blood is boiling. I have just spoken to an ineffective man at the New Shopper to complain about the image of the children being used inappropriately (my son is one of them). His name is Dan Keel and when I told him I found it really offensive (being half jewish) that the paper has used the picture of the children interpreting a poem at the matriculation ceremony as Hitler youth he just said he was "sorry but they have to use photos to best represent the story". I asked him how this photo represented the story of a narrow minded, rule breaking mother and her child and he couldn't answer me.
Let them publish whatever they want in the paper, just not pictures of my child wrongly represented.
Not sure what I should do now?
I also spoke to Dan and await still, contact from the editor. I also had the same robotic approach, you signed to say images could be used. The advice I have been given is that these are children and images used in this way is not appropriate and does not safeguard the children from any retaliation with regard to this particular photograph. It is a disgrace and I intend to make it known that these kids have been exploited, within their loophole of "Well you did sign so legally you have no way to do anything." I think this is a change needed about now. The grey area falls in our favour on this one and I intend to expose it..
[quote][p][bold]DaphneR[/bold] wrote: OK, now my blood is boiling. I have just spoken to an ineffective man at the New Shopper to complain about the image of the children being used inappropriately (my son is one of them). His name is Dan Keel and when I told him I found it really offensive (being half jewish) that the paper has used the picture of the children interpreting a poem at the matriculation ceremony as Hitler youth he just said he was "sorry but they have to use photos to best represent the story". I asked him how this photo represented the story of a narrow minded, rule breaking mother and her child and he couldn't answer me. Let them publish whatever they want in the paper, just not pictures of my child wrongly represented. Not sure what I should do now?[/p][/quote]I also spoke to Dan and await still, contact from the editor. I also had the same robotic approach, you signed to say images could be used. The advice I have been given is that these are children and images used in this way is not appropriate and does not safeguard the children from any retaliation with regard to this particular photograph. It is a disgrace and I intend to make it known that these kids have been exploited, within their loophole of "Well you did sign so legally you have no way to do anything." I think this is a change needed about now. The grey area falls in our favour on this one and I intend to expose it.. Deefea

4:08pm Thu 11 Oct 12

DaphneR says...

Deefea wrote:
DaphneR wrote:
OK, now my blood is boiling. I have just spoken to an ineffective man at the New Shopper to complain about the image of the children being used inappropriately (my son is one of them). His name is Dan Keel and when I told him I found it really offensive (being half jewish) that the paper has used the picture of the children interpreting a poem at the matriculation ceremony as Hitler youth he just said he was "sorry but they have to use photos to best represent the story". I asked him how this photo represented the story of a narrow minded, rule breaking mother and her child and he couldn't answer me.
Let them publish whatever they want in the paper, just not pictures of my child wrongly represented.
Not sure what I should do now?
I also spoke to Dan and await still, contact from the editor. I also had the same robotic approach, you signed to say images could be used. The advice I have been given is that these are children and images used in this way is not appropriate and does not safeguard the children from any retaliation with regard to this particular photograph. It is a disgrace and I intend to make it known that these kids have been exploited, within their loophole of "Well you did sign so legally you have no way to do anything." I think this is a change needed about now. The grey area falls in our favour on this one and I intend to expose it..
Somehow I've managed to delete my previous comment. I have emailed the editor aparkes@london.newsq
uest.co.uk and I have a friend who is very senior with one of the national papers so I am seeking advice from him.
@Deefea - Please keep me informed on how you think we can do more. Not sure how we can actually get in touch with each other to hatch a plan! I am SO ANGRY my child has been depicted in this way.
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DaphneR[/bold] wrote: OK, now my blood is boiling. I have just spoken to an ineffective man at the New Shopper to complain about the image of the children being used inappropriately (my son is one of them). His name is Dan Keel and when I told him I found it really offensive (being half jewish) that the paper has used the picture of the children interpreting a poem at the matriculation ceremony as Hitler youth he just said he was "sorry but they have to use photos to best represent the story". I asked him how this photo represented the story of a narrow minded, rule breaking mother and her child and he couldn't answer me. Let them publish whatever they want in the paper, just not pictures of my child wrongly represented. Not sure what I should do now?[/p][/quote]I also spoke to Dan and await still, contact from the editor. I also had the same robotic approach, you signed to say images could be used. The advice I have been given is that these are children and images used in this way is not appropriate and does not safeguard the children from any retaliation with regard to this particular photograph. It is a disgrace and I intend to make it known that these kids have been exploited, within their loophole of "Well you did sign so legally you have no way to do anything." I think this is a change needed about now. The grey area falls in our favour on this one and I intend to expose it..[/p][/quote]Somehow I've managed to delete my previous comment. I have emailed the editor aparkes@london.newsq uest.co.uk and I have a friend who is very senior with one of the national papers so I am seeking advice from him. @Deefea - Please keep me informed on how you think we can do more. Not sure how we can actually get in touch with each other to hatch a plan! I am SO ANGRY my child has been depicted in this way. DaphneR

4:11pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

lord righteous wrote:
joy1978 wrote:
no one get this it was not about the phone it was about a male searching her that was the problem this lady is only trying to protect her daughter and let others know what has happened i think maybe some of you would think differently about this if it was your child and not someone elses rules were broken and she has gone to the head and the board and the police all our investigating the newspaper has wrote the article wrong it was never avout the phone it was about the searching!!!!!
Will you please use the odd bit of punctuation,i cannot read your ramblings.
Really? So why is my son in the picture at his ceremony then? We don't support you friend's issue??? Putting my son at risk for a cause we do not believe in? I am angry and this needs highlighting further, so I hope your friend is ready for her 5 minutes of fame because I will ensure it is known how she has portrayed others and I do take it personally that MY child is in the photo.
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joy1978[/bold] wrote: no one get this it was not about the phone it was about a male searching her that was the problem this lady is only trying to protect her daughter and let others know what has happened i think maybe some of you would think differently about this if it was your child and not someone elses rules were broken and she has gone to the head and the board and the police all our investigating the newspaper has wrote the article wrong it was never avout the phone it was about the searching!!!!![/p][/quote]Will you please use the odd bit of punctuation,i cannot read your ramblings.[/p][/quote]Really? So why is my son in the picture at his ceremony then? We don't support you friend's issue??? Putting my son at risk for a cause we do not believe in? I am angry and this needs highlighting further, so I hope your friend is ready for her 5 minutes of fame because I will ensure it is known how she has portrayed others and I do take it personally that MY child is in the photo. Deefea

4:13pm Thu 11 Oct 12

phoenixrising1 says...

the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .
Have none of you women got jobs ?
Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? )

Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time .

Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ?

Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .[/p][/quote]Have none of you women got jobs ?[/p][/quote]Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument . phoenixrising1

4:22pm Thu 11 Oct 12

the wall says...

DaphneR wrote:
OK, now my blood is boiling. I have just spoken to an ineffective man at the New Shopper to complain about the image of the children being used inappropriately (my son is one of them). His name is Dan Keel and when I told him I found it really offensive (being half jewish) that the paper has used the picture of the children interpreting a poem at the matriculation ceremony as Hitler youth he just said he was "sorry but they have to use photos to best represent the story". I asked him how this photo represented the story of a narrow minded, rule breaking mother and her child and he couldn't answer me. Let them publish whatever they want in the paper, just not pictures of my child wrongly represented. Not sure what I should do now?
What half ? Top, bottom, left or right ?

By the way it's a capital letter for Jewish.
[quote][p][bold]DaphneR[/bold] wrote: OK, now my blood is boiling. I have just spoken to an ineffective man at the New Shopper to complain about the image of the children being used inappropriately (my son is one of them). His name is Dan Keel and when I told him I found it really offensive (being half jewish) that the paper has used the picture of the children interpreting a poem at the matriculation ceremony as Hitler youth he just said he was "sorry but they have to use photos to best represent the story". I asked him how this photo represented the story of a narrow minded, rule breaking mother and her child and he couldn't answer me. Let them publish whatever they want in the paper, just not pictures of my child wrongly represented. Not sure what I should do now?[/p][/quote]What half ? Top, bottom, left or right ? By the way it's a capital letter for Jewish. the wall

4:24pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

DaphneR wrote:
Deefea wrote:
DaphneR wrote:
OK, now my blood is boiling. I have just spoken to an ineffective man at the New Shopper to complain about the image of the children being used inappropriately (my son is one of them). His name is Dan Keel and when I told him I found it really offensive (being half jewish) that the paper has used the picture of the children interpreting a poem at the matriculation ceremony as Hitler youth he just said he was "sorry but they have to use photos to best represent the story". I asked him how this photo represented the story of a narrow minded, rule breaking mother and her child and he couldn't answer me.
Let them publish whatever they want in the paper, just not pictures of my child wrongly represented.
Not sure what I should do now?
I also spoke to Dan and await still, contact from the editor. I also had the same robotic approach, you signed to say images could be used. The advice I have been given is that these are children and images used in this way is not appropriate and does not safeguard the children from any retaliation with regard to this particular photograph. It is a disgrace and I intend to make it known that these kids have been exploited, within their loophole of "Well you did sign so legally you have no way to do anything." I think this is a change needed about now. The grey area falls in our favour on this one and I intend to expose it..
Somehow I've managed to delete my previous comment. I have emailed the editor aparkes@london.newsq

uest.co.uk and I have a friend who is very senior with one of the national papers so I am seeking advice from him.
@Deefea - Please keep me informed on how you think we can do more. Not sure how we can actually get in touch with each other to hatch a plan! I am SO ANGRY my child has been depicted in this way.
I have contacted Watchdog and asked for a call to see if they can help, I also have a friend in the print and although NS are very complacent about it, It is an infringement of my Child's human rights and it is defamatory, libel and slanderous. Dan Keel informed me that it clearly states "A ceremony for new pupils".....this could indicate an initiation ceremony. It was not for new pupils, it was for the introduction of their learning and a chance to exhibit their hard work. I am livid. I will be forming a group on facebook if that suits and if those who have children at GFS can make themselves known, we can join forces and take this all the way. I will post the name of the group and ask that you join with verification of your child, so as to keep out those who have no reason to be snooping.
[quote][p][bold]DaphneR[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DaphneR[/bold] wrote: OK, now my blood is boiling. I have just spoken to an ineffective man at the New Shopper to complain about the image of the children being used inappropriately (my son is one of them). His name is Dan Keel and when I told him I found it really offensive (being half jewish) that the paper has used the picture of the children interpreting a poem at the matriculation ceremony as Hitler youth he just said he was "sorry but they have to use photos to best represent the story". I asked him how this photo represented the story of a narrow minded, rule breaking mother and her child and he couldn't answer me. Let them publish whatever they want in the paper, just not pictures of my child wrongly represented. Not sure what I should do now?[/p][/quote]I also spoke to Dan and await still, contact from the editor. I also had the same robotic approach, you signed to say images could be used. The advice I have been given is that these are children and images used in this way is not appropriate and does not safeguard the children from any retaliation with regard to this particular photograph. It is a disgrace and I intend to make it known that these kids have been exploited, within their loophole of "Well you did sign so legally you have no way to do anything." I think this is a change needed about now. The grey area falls in our favour on this one and I intend to expose it..[/p][/quote]Somehow I've managed to delete my previous comment. I have emailed the editor aparkes@london.newsq uest.co.uk and I have a friend who is very senior with one of the national papers so I am seeking advice from him. @Deefea - Please keep me informed on how you think we can do more. Not sure how we can actually get in touch with each other to hatch a plan! I am SO ANGRY my child has been depicted in this way.[/p][/quote]I have contacted Watchdog and asked for a call to see if they can help, I also have a friend in the print and although NS are very complacent about it, It is an infringement of my Child's human rights and it is defamatory, libel and slanderous. Dan Keel informed me that it clearly states "A ceremony for new pupils".....this could indicate an initiation ceremony. It was not for new pupils, it was for the introduction of their learning and a chance to exhibit their hard work. I am livid. I will be forming a group on facebook if that suits and if those who have children at GFS can make themselves known, we can join forces and take this all the way. I will post the name of the group and ask that you join with verification of your child, so as to keep out those who have no reason to be snooping. Deefea

4:25pm Thu 11 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
joy1978 wrote:
no one get this it was not about the phone it was about a male searching her that was the problem this lady is only trying to protect her daughter and let others know what has happened i think maybe some of you would think differently about this if it was your child and not someone elses rules were broken and she has gone to the head and the board and the police all our investigating the newspaper has wrote the article wrong it was never avout the phone it was about the searching!!!!!
Will you please use the odd bit of punctuation,i cannot read your ramblings.
Really? So why is my son in the picture at his ceremony then? We don't support you friend's issue??? Putting my son at risk for a cause we do not believe in? I am angry and this needs highlighting further, so I hope your friend is ready for her 5 minutes of fame because I will ensure it is known how she has portrayed others and I do take it personally that MY child is in the photo.
Why for Gods sake, is your child 'at risk'?
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joy1978[/bold] wrote: no one get this it was not about the phone it was about a male searching her that was the problem this lady is only trying to protect her daughter and let others know what has happened i think maybe some of you would think differently about this if it was your child and not someone elses rules were broken and she has gone to the head and the board and the police all our investigating the newspaper has wrote the article wrong it was never avout the phone it was about the searching!!!!![/p][/quote]Will you please use the odd bit of punctuation,i cannot read your ramblings.[/p][/quote]Really? So why is my son in the picture at his ceremony then? We don't support you friend's issue??? Putting my son at risk for a cause we do not believe in? I am angry and this needs highlighting further, so I hope your friend is ready for her 5 minutes of fame because I will ensure it is known how she has portrayed others and I do take it personally that MY child is in the photo.[/p][/quote]Why for Gods sake, is your child 'at risk'? lord righteous

4:29pm Thu 11 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

And..........,if the school had invited/paid for photo's to be taken on the school premises you can bet your life that somewhere in the t&c's when joining the school is a clause saying something like they 'reserve the right to publish pictures blah blah blah'.
Copyright of images is owned by the photographer unless 'handed' to someone else.So it might not even be the school that has the photos on file.
And..........,if the school had invited/paid for photo's to be taken on the school premises you can bet your life that somewhere in the t&c's when joining the school is a clause saying something like they 'reserve the right to publish pictures blah blah blah'. Copyright of images is owned by the photographer unless 'handed' to someone else.So it might not even be the school that has the photos on file. lord righteous

4:30pm Thu 11 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

And...........get over it,what harm has this photo done to anyone?
And...........get over it,what harm has this photo done to anyone? lord righteous

4:31pm Thu 11 Oct 12

DaphneR says...

Great. I'll find you on FB once it's set up - let me know!
Great. I'll find you on FB once it's set up - let me know! DaphneR

4:35pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

lord righteous wrote:
And...........get over it,what harm has this photo done to anyone?
Seriously? My son, being exploited and supporting a story that quite frankly I couldn't give a hoot about. Good enough for you? If not, don't waste your time reading it!
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: And...........get over it,what harm has this photo done to anyone?[/p][/quote]Seriously? My son, being exploited and supporting a story that quite frankly I couldn't give a hoot about. Good enough for you? If not, don't waste your time reading it! Deefea

4:36pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

lord righteous wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
joy1978 wrote:
no one get this it was not about the phone it was about a male searching her that was the problem this lady is only trying to protect her daughter and let others know what has happened i think maybe some of you would think differently about this if it was your child and not someone elses rules were broken and she has gone to the head and the board and the police all our investigating the newspaper has wrote the article wrong it was never avout the phone it was about the searching!!!!!
Will you please use the odd bit of punctuation,i cannot read your ramblings.
Really? So why is my son in the picture at his ceremony then? We don't support you friend's issue??? Putting my son at risk for a cause we do not believe in? I am angry and this needs highlighting further, so I hope your friend is ready for her 5 minutes of fame because I will ensure it is known how she has portrayed others and I do take it personally that MY child is in the photo.
Why for Gods sake, is your child 'at risk'?
Yes he is.
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joy1978[/bold] wrote: no one get this it was not about the phone it was about a male searching her that was the problem this lady is only trying to protect her daughter and let others know what has happened i think maybe some of you would think differently about this if it was your child and not someone elses rules were broken and she has gone to the head and the board and the police all our investigating the newspaper has wrote the article wrong it was never avout the phone it was about the searching!!!!![/p][/quote]Will you please use the odd bit of punctuation,i cannot read your ramblings.[/p][/quote]Really? So why is my son in the picture at his ceremony then? We don't support you friend's issue??? Putting my son at risk for a cause we do not believe in? I am angry and this needs highlighting further, so I hope your friend is ready for her 5 minutes of fame because I will ensure it is known how she has portrayed others and I do take it personally that MY child is in the photo.[/p][/quote]Why for Gods sake, is your child 'at risk'?[/p][/quote]Yes he is. Deefea

4:37pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
joy1978 wrote:
no one get this it was not about the phone it was about a male searching her that was the problem this lady is only trying to protect her daughter and let others know what has happened i think maybe some of you would think differently about this if it was your child and not someone elses rules were broken and she has gone to the head and the board and the police all our investigating the newspaper has wrote the article wrong it was never avout the phone it was about the searching!!!!!
Will you please use the odd bit of punctuation,i cannot read your ramblings.
Really? So why is my son in the picture at his ceremony then? We don't support you friend's issue??? Putting my son at risk for a cause we do not believe in? I am angry and this needs highlighting further, so I hope your friend is ready for her 5 minutes of fame because I will ensure it is known how she has portrayed others and I do take it personally that MY child is in the photo.
Why for Gods sake, is your child 'at risk'?
Yes he is.
When local children asked him if his school was a member of KKK.....I would say he is most definitely at risk.
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]joy1978[/bold] wrote: no one get this it was not about the phone it was about a male searching her that was the problem this lady is only trying to protect her daughter and let others know what has happened i think maybe some of you would think differently about this if it was your child and not someone elses rules were broken and she has gone to the head and the board and the police all our investigating the newspaper has wrote the article wrong it was never avout the phone it was about the searching!!!!![/p][/quote]Will you please use the odd bit of punctuation,i cannot read your ramblings.[/p][/quote]Really? So why is my son in the picture at his ceremony then? We don't support you friend's issue??? Putting my son at risk for a cause we do not believe in? I am angry and this needs highlighting further, so I hope your friend is ready for her 5 minutes of fame because I will ensure it is known how she has portrayed others and I do take it personally that MY child is in the photo.[/p][/quote]Why for Gods sake, is your child 'at risk'?[/p][/quote]Yes he is.[/p][/quote]When local children asked him if his school was a member of KKK.....I would say he is most definitely at risk. Deefea

4:39pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

Parents of GFS fight against Newsshopper!




Add FB group. Those only interested in sarcasm and pathetic comments need not apply :)
Parents of GFS fight against Newsshopper! Add FB group. Those only interested in sarcasm and pathetic comments need not apply :) Deefea

4:43pm Thu 11 Oct 12

the wall says...

phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .
Have none of you women got jobs ?
Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .
"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ?

phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well)


sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet?

multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand.

Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling.

How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers?

"counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?
[quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .[/p][/quote]Have none of you women got jobs ?[/p][/quote]Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .[/p][/quote]"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ? the wall

4:44pm Thu 11 Oct 12

the wall says...

WOOHOO there is now a Failbook page!
WOOHOO there is now a Failbook page! the wall

4:47pm Thu 11 Oct 12

DaphneR says...

Deefea - can you post a link to the FB group? I can't find it when I search. Thanks!
Deefea - can you post a link to the FB group? I can't find it when I search. Thanks! DaphneR

4:47pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

the wall wrote:
WOOHOO there is now a Failbook page!
Yes, and you are not invited!
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: WOOHOO there is now a Failbook page![/p][/quote]Yes, and you are not invited! Deefea

4:49pm Thu 11 Oct 12

DaphneR says...

Ignore.
Ignore. DaphneR

4:51pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
And...........get over it,what harm has this photo done to anyone?
Seriously? My son, being exploited and supporting a story that quite frankly I couldn't give a hoot about. Good enough for you? If not, don't waste your time reading it!
Apologies I should have calmed down before angry typing! At the end of the day, its my own views and hopefully will gain support from the right calibre of people. I will switch to the group page now and keep from clogging the newsfeed!
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: And...........get over it,what harm has this photo done to anyone?[/p][/quote]Seriously? My son, being exploited and supporting a story that quite frankly I couldn't give a hoot about. Good enough for you? If not, don't waste your time reading it![/p][/quote]Apologies I should have calmed down before angry typing! At the end of the day, its my own views and hopefully will gain support from the right calibre of people. I will switch to the group page now and keep from clogging the newsfeed! Deefea

4:54pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

https://www.facebook
.com/groups/52583321
4109490/?ref=ts&fref
=ts
https://www.facebook .com/groups/52583321 4109490/?ref=ts&fref =ts Deefea

4:54pm Thu 11 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

Deefea wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
And...........get over it,what harm has this photo done to anyone?
Seriously? My son, being exploited and supporting a story that quite frankly I couldn't give a hoot about. Good enough for you? If not, don't waste your time reading it!
Apologies I should have calmed down before angry typing! At the end of the day, its my own views and hopefully will gain support from the right calibre of people. I will switch to the group page now and keep from clogging the newsfeed!
No,a pathetic excuse.
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: And...........get over it,what harm has this photo done to anyone?[/p][/quote]Seriously? My son, being exploited and supporting a story that quite frankly I couldn't give a hoot about. Good enough for you? If not, don't waste your time reading it![/p][/quote]Apologies I should have calmed down before angry typing! At the end of the day, its my own views and hopefully will gain support from the right calibre of people. I will switch to the group page now and keep from clogging the newsfeed![/p][/quote]No,a pathetic excuse. lord righteous

4:56pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

DaphneR wrote:
Deefea - can you post a link to the FB group? I can't find it when I search. Thanks!
https://www.facebook
.com/groups/52583321
4109490/?ref=ts&fref
=ts
[quote][p][bold]DaphneR[/bold] wrote: Deefea - can you post a link to the FB group? I can't find it when I search. Thanks![/p][/quote]https://www.facebook .com/groups/52583321 4109490/?ref=ts&fref =ts Deefea

5:00pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

lord righteous wrote:
Deefea wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
And...........get over it,what harm has this photo done to anyone?
Seriously? My son, being exploited and supporting a story that quite frankly I couldn't give a hoot about. Good enough for you? If not, don't waste your time reading it!
Apologies I should have calmed down before angry typing! At the end of the day, its my own views and hopefully will gain support from the right calibre of people. I will switch to the group page now and keep from clogging the newsfeed!
No,a pathetic excuse.
Lol
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: And...........get over it,what harm has this photo done to anyone?[/p][/quote]Seriously? My son, being exploited and supporting a story that quite frankly I couldn't give a hoot about. Good enough for you? If not, don't waste your time reading it![/p][/quote]Apologies I should have calmed down before angry typing! At the end of the day, its my own views and hopefully will gain support from the right calibre of people. I will switch to the group page now and keep from clogging the newsfeed![/p][/quote]No,a pathetic excuse.[/p][/quote]Lol Deefea

5:01pm Thu 11 Oct 12

the wall says...

Deefea wrote:
DaphneR wrote:
Deefea wrote:
DaphneR wrote: OK, now my blood is boiling. I have just spoken to an ineffective man at the New Shopper to complain about the image of the children being used inappropriately (my son is one of them). His name is Dan Keel and when I told him I found it really offensive (being half jewish) that the paper has used the picture of the children interpreting a poem at the matriculation ceremony as Hitler youth he just said he was "sorry but they have to use photos to best represent the story". I asked him how this photo represented the story of a narrow minded, rule breaking mother and her child and he couldn't answer me. Let them publish whatever they want in the paper, just not pictures of my child wrongly represented. Not sure what I should do now?
I also spoke to Dan and await still, contact from the editor. I also had the same robotic approach, you signed to say images could be used. The advice I have been given is that these are children and images used in this way is not appropriate and does not safeguard the children from any retaliation with regard to this particular photograph. It is a disgrace and I intend to make it known that these kids have been exploited, within their loophole of "Well you did sign so legally you have no way to do anything." I think this is a change needed about now. The grey area falls in our favour on this one and I intend to expose it..
Somehow I've managed to delete my previous comment. I have emailed the editor aparkes@london.newsq uest.co.uk and I have a friend who is very senior with one of the national papers so I am seeking advice from him. @Deefea - Please keep me informed on how you think we can do more. Not sure how we can actually get in touch with each other to hatch a plan! I am SO ANGRY my child has been depicted in this way.
I have contacted Watchdog and asked for a call to see if they can help, I also have a friend in the print and although NS are very complacent about it, It is an infringement of my Child's human rights and it is defamatory, libel and slanderous. Dan Keel informed me that it clearly states "A ceremony for new pupils".....this could indicate an initiation ceremony. It was not for new pupils, it was for the introduction of their learning and a chance to exhibit their hard work. I am livid. I will be forming a group on facebook if that suits and if those who have children at GFS can make themselves known, we can join forces and take this all the way. I will post the name of the group and ask that you join with verification of your child, so as to keep out those who have no reason to be snooping.
Watchdog ........ PMSL really Watchdog the 'consumer' affairs programme.


" an infringement of my Child's human rights and it is defamatory, libel and slanderous" You really have no idea what any of these things aredo you.

What I really love about all these postings lately, is you telling the NS what you are going to do. If you are going to do battle with someone you don't tell them you're tactics. Big fail there.

Do you know who own's the copyright?
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DaphneR[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DaphneR[/bold] wrote: OK, now my blood is boiling. I have just spoken to an ineffective man at the New Shopper to complain about the image of the children being used inappropriately (my son is one of them). His name is Dan Keel and when I told him I found it really offensive (being half jewish) that the paper has used the picture of the children interpreting a poem at the matriculation ceremony as Hitler youth he just said he was "sorry but they have to use photos to best represent the story". I asked him how this photo represented the story of a narrow minded, rule breaking mother and her child and he couldn't answer me. Let them publish whatever they want in the paper, just not pictures of my child wrongly represented. Not sure what I should do now?[/p][/quote]I also spoke to Dan and await still, contact from the editor. I also had the same robotic approach, you signed to say images could be used. The advice I have been given is that these are children and images used in this way is not appropriate and does not safeguard the children from any retaliation with regard to this particular photograph. It is a disgrace and I intend to make it known that these kids have been exploited, within their loophole of "Well you did sign so legally you have no way to do anything." I think this is a change needed about now. The grey area falls in our favour on this one and I intend to expose it..[/p][/quote]Somehow I've managed to delete my previous comment. I have emailed the editor aparkes@london.newsq uest.co.uk and I have a friend who is very senior with one of the national papers so I am seeking advice from him. @Deefea - Please keep me informed on how you think we can do more. Not sure how we can actually get in touch with each other to hatch a plan! I am SO ANGRY my child has been depicted in this way.[/p][/quote]I have contacted Watchdog and asked for a call to see if they can help, I also have a friend in the print and although NS are very complacent about it, It is an infringement of my Child's human rights and it is defamatory, libel and slanderous. Dan Keel informed me that it clearly states "A ceremony for new pupils".....this could indicate an initiation ceremony. It was not for new pupils, it was for the introduction of their learning and a chance to exhibit their hard work. I am livid. I will be forming a group on facebook if that suits and if those who have children at GFS can make themselves known, we can join forces and take this all the way. I will post the name of the group and ask that you join with verification of your child, so as to keep out those who have no reason to be snooping.[/p][/quote]Watchdog ........ PMSL really Watchdog the 'consumer' affairs programme. " an infringement of my Child's human rights and it is defamatory, libel and slanderous" You really have no idea what any of these things aredo you. What I really love about all these postings lately, is you telling the NS what you are going to do. If you are going to do battle with someone you don't tell them you're tactics. Big fail there. Do you know who own's the copyright? the wall

5:03pm Thu 11 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

Please help in our quest to overturn the way in which our children have been exploited by the recent plight of Mrs Wells
and he daughter. Our children have been depicted as being members of some sort of "cult" school and their faces been placed on front page of the Newsshopper for local people to view, this week. This photograph should not have been used for a cause we have not supported and not used for vindictive purposes and slander.

'overturn' what? It is already out there,too late i'm afraid!
Did any parents attend the 'play' depicted in the photo,did any parents worry about or is it just now they are worried?
Its a public school,they can publish photos if they want to.
How have they been used for vindictive purposes and slander?
The only comments on this story have been about the actual story itself and not about the photos that nobody cared about until you silly woman mentioned them!
Please help in our quest to overturn the way in which our children have been exploited by the recent plight of Mrs Wells and he daughter. Our children have been depicted as being members of some sort of "cult" school and their faces been placed on front page of the Newsshopper for local people to view, this week. This photograph should not have been used for a cause we have not supported and not used for vindictive purposes and slander. 'overturn' what? It is already out there,too late i'm afraid! Did any parents attend the 'play' depicted in the photo,did any parents worry about or is it just now they are worried? Its a public school,they can publish photos if they want to. How have they been used for vindictive purposes and slander? The only comments on this story have been about the actual story itself and not about the photos that nobody cared about until you silly woman mentioned them! lord righteous

5:04pm Thu 11 Oct 12

DaphneR says...

Deefea - sorry to be thick, is the FB page up?
Deefea - sorry to be thick, is the FB page up? DaphneR

5:09pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

lord righteous wrote:
And..........,if the school had invited/paid for photo's to be taken on the school premises you can bet your life that somewhere in the t&c's when joining the school is a clause saying something like they 'reserve the right to publish pictures blah blah blah'.
Copyright of images is owned by the photographer unless 'handed' to someone else.So it might not even be the school that has the photos on file.
You are right, the Newsshopper took the photos they used at the Matriculation Ceremony. They are not correct for the purpose they have been used for, so it isn't photos supplied by the school, it is photos they have taken for that ceremony only and have been used alongside Mrs Wells staged photo and her claim its like a Prison Camp.
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: And..........,if the school had invited/paid for photo's to be taken on the school premises you can bet your life that somewhere in the t&c's when joining the school is a clause saying something like they 'reserve the right to publish pictures blah blah blah'. Copyright of images is owned by the photographer unless 'handed' to someone else.So it might not even be the school that has the photos on file.[/p][/quote]You are right, the Newsshopper took the photos they used at the Matriculation Ceremony. They are not correct for the purpose they have been used for, so it isn't photos supplied by the school, it is photos they have taken for that ceremony only and have been used alongside Mrs Wells staged photo and her claim its like a Prison Camp. Deefea

5:10pm Thu 11 Oct 12

the wall says...

lord righteous wrote:
Please help in our quest to overturn the way in which our children have been exploited by the recent plight of Mrs Wells and he daughter. Our children have been depicted as being members of some sort of "cult" school and their faces been placed on front page of the Newsshopper for local people to view, this week. This photograph should not have been used for a cause we have not supported and not used for vindictive purposes and slander. 'overturn' what? It is already out there,too late i'm afraid! Did any parents attend the 'play' depicted in the photo,did any parents worry about or is it just now they are worried? Its a public school,they can publish photos if they want to. How have they been used for vindictive purposes and slander? The only comments on this story have been about the actual story itself and not about the photos that nobody cared about until you silly woman mentioned them!
Bang on!

But this is very very funny. I posted this up in a few other forums and everyone is having a right laugh at it.
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Please help in our quest to overturn the way in which our children have been exploited by the recent plight of Mrs Wells and he daughter. Our children have been depicted as being members of some sort of "cult" school and their faces been placed on front page of the Newsshopper for local people to view, this week. This photograph should not have been used for a cause we have not supported and not used for vindictive purposes and slander. 'overturn' what? It is already out there,too late i'm afraid! Did any parents attend the 'play' depicted in the photo,did any parents worry about or is it just now they are worried? Its a public school,they can publish photos if they want to. How have they been used for vindictive purposes and slander? The only comments on this story have been about the actual story itself and not about the photos that nobody cared about until you silly woman mentioned them![/p][/quote]Bang on! But this is very very funny. I posted this up in a few other forums and everyone is having a right laugh at it. the wall

5:13pm Thu 11 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

DEEFEA and DAPHNER
You have a friend 'in the print'.
What as,a cleaner!
You have no idea do you?
How have these kids been exploited?
How is it defamatory,slanderou
s and libel?
A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!)
As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice.
Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it!
Now get back to making the dinner luv.
DEEFEA and DAPHNER You have a friend 'in the print'. What as,a cleaner! You have no idea do you? How have these kids been exploited? How is it defamatory,slanderou s and libel? A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!) As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice. Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it! Now get back to making the dinner luv. lord righteous

5:14pm Thu 11 Oct 12

greenwichman says...

** IMPORTANT **
People are talking Watchdog, legal action, Facebook etc.
PLEASE, before anyone does ANYTHING public, clear it through the school first. They will undoubtedly have this is hand and parental action, 'unauthorised' may be counter productive.
PLEASE LIASE WITH GFS
** IMPORTANT ** People are talking Watchdog, legal action, Facebook etc. PLEASE, before anyone does ANYTHING public, clear it through the school first. They will undoubtedly have this is hand and parental action, 'unauthorised' may be counter productive. PLEASE LIASE WITH GFS greenwichman

5:15pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

the wall wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Please help in our quest to overturn the way in which our children have been exploited by the recent plight of Mrs Wells and he daughter. Our children have been depicted as being members of some sort of "cult" school and their faces been placed on front page of the Newsshopper for local people to view, this week. This photograph should not have been used for a cause we have not supported and not used for vindictive purposes and slander. 'overturn' what? It is already out there,too late i'm afraid! Did any parents attend the 'play' depicted in the photo,did any parents worry about or is it just now they are worried? Its a public school,they can publish photos if they want to. How have they been used for vindictive purposes and slander? The only comments on this story have been about the actual story itself and not about the photos that nobody cared about until you silly woman mentioned them!
Bang on!

But this is very very funny. I posted this up in a few other forums and everyone is having a right laugh at it.
Glad it is humorous to you :) Yes please post, get the word out there. Yes we all attended and equally this was never an issue whilst the children performed their poem, ironically I would imagine you don't know much about it! Are you one of these kids parents? Or have you just too much time, as I saw you have commented on other stories.....tut tut!
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Please help in our quest to overturn the way in which our children have been exploited by the recent plight of Mrs Wells and he daughter. Our children have been depicted as being members of some sort of "cult" school and their faces been placed on front page of the Newsshopper for local people to view, this week. This photograph should not have been used for a cause we have not supported and not used for vindictive purposes and slander. 'overturn' what? It is already out there,too late i'm afraid! Did any parents attend the 'play' depicted in the photo,did any parents worry about or is it just now they are worried? Its a public school,they can publish photos if they want to. How have they been used for vindictive purposes and slander? The only comments on this story have been about the actual story itself and not about the photos that nobody cared about until you silly woman mentioned them![/p][/quote]Bang on! But this is very very funny. I posted this up in a few other forums and everyone is having a right laugh at it.[/p][/quote]Glad it is humorous to you :) Yes please post, get the word out there. Yes we all attended and equally this was never an issue whilst the children performed their poem, ironically I would imagine you don't know much about it! Are you one of these kids parents? Or have you just too much time, as I saw you have commented on other stories.....tut tut! Deefea

5:16pm Thu 11 Oct 12

the wall says...

It's about getting £££££££££
It's about getting £££££££££ the wall

5:20pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

the wall wrote:
Deefea wrote:
DaphneR wrote:
Deefea wrote:
DaphneR wrote: OK, now my blood is boiling. I have just spoken to an ineffective man at the New Shopper to complain about the image of the children being used inappropriately (my son is one of them). His name is Dan Keel and when I told him I found it really offensive (being half jewish) that the paper has used the picture of the children interpreting a poem at the matriculation ceremony as Hitler youth he just said he was "sorry but they have to use photos to best represent the story". I asked him how this photo represented the story of a narrow minded, rule breaking mother and her child and he couldn't answer me. Let them publish whatever they want in the paper, just not pictures of my child wrongly represented. Not sure what I should do now?
I also spoke to Dan and await still, contact from the editor. I also had the same robotic approach, you signed to say images could be used. The advice I have been given is that these are children and images used in this way is not appropriate and does not safeguard the children from any retaliation with regard to this particular photograph. It is a disgrace and I intend to make it known that these kids have been exploited, within their loophole of "Well you did sign so legally you have no way to do anything." I think this is a change needed about now. The grey area falls in our favour on this one and I intend to expose it..
Somehow I've managed to delete my previous comment. I have emailed the editor aparkes@london.newsq uest.co.uk and I have a friend who is very senior with one of the national papers so I am seeking advice from him. @Deefea - Please keep me informed on how you think we can do more. Not sure how we can actually get in touch with each other to hatch a plan! I am SO ANGRY my child has been depicted in this way.
I have contacted Watchdog and asked for a call to see if they can help, I also have a friend in the print and although NS are very complacent about it, It is an infringement of my Child's human rights and it is defamatory, libel and slanderous. Dan Keel informed me that it clearly states "A ceremony for new pupils".....this could indicate an initiation ceremony. It was not for new pupils, it was for the introduction of their learning and a chance to exhibit their hard work. I am livid. I will be forming a group on facebook if that suits and if those who have children at GFS can make themselves known, we can join forces and take this all the way. I will post the name of the group and ask that you join with verification of your child, so as to keep out those who have no reason to be snooping.
Watchdog ........ PMSL really Watchdog the 'consumer' affairs programme.


" an infringement of my Child's human rights and it is defamatory, libel and slanderous" You really have no idea what any of these things aredo you.

What I really love about all these postings lately, is you telling the NS what you are going to do. If you are going to do battle with someone you don't tell them you're tactics. Big fail there.

Do you know who own's the copyright?
Do you, and you are very angry and very funny! I do not need to disclose the advice I have been given and yes, I happen to know enough to get me going. Please move along and find another story to sabotage, it pains me to know that you just wish to ridicule and make yourself important. yes, I have had a reply from a few places today, they are for the consumer, watchdog, but they also deal with complaints similar to. But then I don't suppose you would know that, too much time banging off the keyboard trying to make yourself heard. Ok ok I hear you, go off to bed now :)
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DaphneR[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DaphneR[/bold] wrote: OK, now my blood is boiling. I have just spoken to an ineffective man at the New Shopper to complain about the image of the children being used inappropriately (my son is one of them). His name is Dan Keel and when I told him I found it really offensive (being half jewish) that the paper has used the picture of the children interpreting a poem at the matriculation ceremony as Hitler youth he just said he was "sorry but they have to use photos to best represent the story". I asked him how this photo represented the story of a narrow minded, rule breaking mother and her child and he couldn't answer me. Let them publish whatever they want in the paper, just not pictures of my child wrongly represented. Not sure what I should do now?[/p][/quote]I also spoke to Dan and await still, contact from the editor. I also had the same robotic approach, you signed to say images could be used. The advice I have been given is that these are children and images used in this way is not appropriate and does not safeguard the children from any retaliation with regard to this particular photograph. It is a disgrace and I intend to make it known that these kids have been exploited, within their loophole of "Well you did sign so legally you have no way to do anything." I think this is a change needed about now. The grey area falls in our favour on this one and I intend to expose it..[/p][/quote]Somehow I've managed to delete my previous comment. I have emailed the editor aparkes@london.newsq uest.co.uk and I have a friend who is very senior with one of the national papers so I am seeking advice from him. @Deefea - Please keep me informed on how you think we can do more. Not sure how we can actually get in touch with each other to hatch a plan! I am SO ANGRY my child has been depicted in this way.[/p][/quote]I have contacted Watchdog and asked for a call to see if they can help, I also have a friend in the print and although NS are very complacent about it, It is an infringement of my Child's human rights and it is defamatory, libel and slanderous. Dan Keel informed me that it clearly states "A ceremony for new pupils".....this could indicate an initiation ceremony. It was not for new pupils, it was for the introduction of their learning and a chance to exhibit their hard work. I am livid. I will be forming a group on facebook if that suits and if those who have children at GFS can make themselves known, we can join forces and take this all the way. I will post the name of the group and ask that you join with verification of your child, so as to keep out those who have no reason to be snooping.[/p][/quote]Watchdog ........ PMSL really Watchdog the 'consumer' affairs programme. " an infringement of my Child's human rights and it is defamatory, libel and slanderous" You really have no idea what any of these things aredo you. What I really love about all these postings lately, is you telling the NS what you are going to do. If you are going to do battle with someone you don't tell them you're tactics. Big fail there. Do you know who own's the copyright?[/p][/quote]Do you, and you are very angry and very funny! I do not need to disclose the advice I have been given and yes, I happen to know enough to get me going. Please move along and find another story to sabotage, it pains me to know that you just wish to ridicule and make yourself important. yes, I have had a reply from a few places today, they are for the consumer, watchdog, but they also deal with complaints similar to. But then I don't suppose you would know that, too much time banging off the keyboard trying to make yourself heard. Ok ok I hear you, go off to bed now :) Deefea

5:20pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

the wall wrote:
Deefea wrote:
DaphneR wrote:
Deefea wrote:
DaphneR wrote: OK, now my blood is boiling. I have just spoken to an ineffective man at the New Shopper to complain about the image of the children being used inappropriately (my son is one of them). His name is Dan Keel and when I told him I found it really offensive (being half jewish) that the paper has used the picture of the children interpreting a poem at the matriculation ceremony as Hitler youth he just said he was "sorry but they have to use photos to best represent the story". I asked him how this photo represented the story of a narrow minded, rule breaking mother and her child and he couldn't answer me. Let them publish whatever they want in the paper, just not pictures of my child wrongly represented. Not sure what I should do now?
I also spoke to Dan and await still, contact from the editor. I also had the same robotic approach, you signed to say images could be used. The advice I have been given is that these are children and images used in this way is not appropriate and does not safeguard the children from any retaliation with regard to this particular photograph. It is a disgrace and I intend to make it known that these kids have been exploited, within their loophole of "Well you did sign so legally you have no way to do anything." I think this is a change needed about now. The grey area falls in our favour on this one and I intend to expose it..
Somehow I've managed to delete my previous comment. I have emailed the editor aparkes@london.newsq uest.co.uk and I have a friend who is very senior with one of the national papers so I am seeking advice from him. @Deefea - Please keep me informed on how you think we can do more. Not sure how we can actually get in touch with each other to hatch a plan! I am SO ANGRY my child has been depicted in this way.
I have contacted Watchdog and asked for a call to see if they can help, I also have a friend in the print and although NS are very complacent about it, It is an infringement of my Child's human rights and it is defamatory, libel and slanderous. Dan Keel informed me that it clearly states "A ceremony for new pupils".....this could indicate an initiation ceremony. It was not for new pupils, it was for the introduction of their learning and a chance to exhibit their hard work. I am livid. I will be forming a group on facebook if that suits and if those who have children at GFS can make themselves known, we can join forces and take this all the way. I will post the name of the group and ask that you join with verification of your child, so as to keep out those who have no reason to be snooping.
Watchdog ........ PMSL really Watchdog the 'consumer' affairs programme.


" an infringement of my Child's human rights and it is defamatory, libel and slanderous" You really have no idea what any of these things aredo you.

What I really love about all these postings lately, is you telling the NS what you are going to do. If you are going to do battle with someone you don't tell them you're tactics. Big fail there.

Do you know who own's the copyright?
Do you, and you are very angry and very funny! I do not need to disclose the advice I have been given and yes, I happen to know enough to get me going. Please move along and find another story to sabotage, it pains me to know that you just wish to ridicule and make yourself important. yes, I have had a reply from a few places today, they are for the consumer, watchdog, but they also deal with complaints similar to. But then I don't suppose you would know that, too much time banging off the keyboard trying to make yourself heard. Ok ok I hear you, go off to bed now :)
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DaphneR[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]DaphneR[/bold] wrote: OK, now my blood is boiling. I have just spoken to an ineffective man at the New Shopper to complain about the image of the children being used inappropriately (my son is one of them). His name is Dan Keel and when I told him I found it really offensive (being half jewish) that the paper has used the picture of the children interpreting a poem at the matriculation ceremony as Hitler youth he just said he was "sorry but they have to use photos to best represent the story". I asked him how this photo represented the story of a narrow minded, rule breaking mother and her child and he couldn't answer me. Let them publish whatever they want in the paper, just not pictures of my child wrongly represented. Not sure what I should do now?[/p][/quote]I also spoke to Dan and await still, contact from the editor. I also had the same robotic approach, you signed to say images could be used. The advice I have been given is that these are children and images used in this way is not appropriate and does not safeguard the children from any retaliation with regard to this particular photograph. It is a disgrace and I intend to make it known that these kids have been exploited, within their loophole of "Well you did sign so legally you have no way to do anything." I think this is a change needed about now. The grey area falls in our favour on this one and I intend to expose it..[/p][/quote]Somehow I've managed to delete my previous comment. I have emailed the editor aparkes@london.newsq uest.co.uk and I have a friend who is very senior with one of the national papers so I am seeking advice from him. @Deefea - Please keep me informed on how you think we can do more. Not sure how we can actually get in touch with each other to hatch a plan! I am SO ANGRY my child has been depicted in this way.[/p][/quote]I have contacted Watchdog and asked for a call to see if they can help, I also have a friend in the print and although NS are very complacent about it, It is an infringement of my Child's human rights and it is defamatory, libel and slanderous. Dan Keel informed me that it clearly states "A ceremony for new pupils".....this could indicate an initiation ceremony. It was not for new pupils, it was for the introduction of their learning and a chance to exhibit their hard work. I am livid. I will be forming a group on facebook if that suits and if those who have children at GFS can make themselves known, we can join forces and take this all the way. I will post the name of the group and ask that you join with verification of your child, so as to keep out those who have no reason to be snooping.[/p][/quote]Watchdog ........ PMSL really Watchdog the 'consumer' affairs programme. " an infringement of my Child's human rights and it is defamatory, libel and slanderous" You really have no idea what any of these things aredo you. What I really love about all these postings lately, is you telling the NS what you are going to do. If you are going to do battle with someone you don't tell them you're tactics. Big fail there. Do you know who own's the copyright?[/p][/quote]Do you, and you are very angry and very funny! I do not need to disclose the advice I have been given and yes, I happen to know enough to get me going. Please move along and find another story to sabotage, it pains me to know that you just wish to ridicule and make yourself important. yes, I have had a reply from a few places today, they are for the consumer, watchdog, but they also deal with complaints similar to. But then I don't suppose you would know that, too much time banging off the keyboard trying to make yourself heard. Ok ok I hear you, go off to bed now :) Deefea

5:21pm Thu 11 Oct 12

PaulErith says...

Sorry, I'm probably being really stupid so I expect to be ribbed if I'm missing something obvious....but what photos are we talking about??? I can only see one photo in this story and that's of the Mum and the girl who are daftly banging on about a mobile phone. Maybe it's my browser not displaying them, but where are these other pics that are everyone's going on about?
Sorry, I'm probably being really stupid so I expect to be ribbed if I'm missing something obvious....but what photos are we talking about??? I can only see one photo in this story and that's of the Mum and the girl who are daftly banging on about a mobile phone. Maybe it's my browser not displaying them, but where are these other pics that are everyone's going on about? PaulErith

5:22pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

lord righteous wrote:
DEEFEA and DAPHNER
You have a friend 'in the print'.
What as,a cleaner!
You have no idea do you?
How have these kids been exploited?
How is it defamatory,slanderou

s and libel?
A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!)
As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice.
Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it!
Now get back to making the dinner luv.
Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already)
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: DEEFEA and DAPHNER You have a friend 'in the print'. What as,a cleaner! You have no idea do you? How have these kids been exploited? How is it defamatory,slanderou s and libel? A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!) As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice. Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it! Now get back to making the dinner luv.[/p][/quote]Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already) Deefea

5:22pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

lord righteous wrote:
DEEFEA and DAPHNER
You have a friend 'in the print'.
What as,a cleaner!
You have no idea do you?
How have these kids been exploited?
How is it defamatory,slanderou

s and libel?
A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!)
As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice.
Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it!
Now get back to making the dinner luv.
Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already)
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: DEEFEA and DAPHNER You have a friend 'in the print'. What as,a cleaner! You have no idea do you? How have these kids been exploited? How is it defamatory,slanderou s and libel? A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!) As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice. Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it! Now get back to making the dinner luv.[/p][/quote]Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already) Deefea

5:22pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

lord righteous wrote:
DEEFEA and DAPHNER
You have a friend 'in the print'.
What as,a cleaner!
You have no idea do you?
How have these kids been exploited?
How is it defamatory,slanderou

s and libel?
A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!)
As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice.
Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it!
Now get back to making the dinner luv.
Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already)
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: DEEFEA and DAPHNER You have a friend 'in the print'. What as,a cleaner! You have no idea do you? How have these kids been exploited? How is it defamatory,slanderou s and libel? A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!) As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice. Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it! Now get back to making the dinner luv.[/p][/quote]Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already) Deefea

5:24pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Greenwich Resident says...

I have serious doubt that there's any truth to the claims of body search carried out by a male teacher on a female student.

In this day and age any teacher would know better than to do something like this and considering GFS staff have been cherry picked I find these claims laughable.

As a new school they've a lot to prove - yes their rules are strict but any parent with half a brain would have read the prospectus and known this. If you don't like teir policies then don't send your child there!

As a prospective GFS parent this hasn't phased me In the slightest - if anything I'm grateful that the likes of mother and her offspring will be on their merry way before my child potentially starts as I can't be doing with families who think they can ignore school policy and do what suits them. Chances are that it was a fellow pupil.

As others have mentioned children and adults survived without mobile phones for many years and it's a proven fact that your child having a mobile makes them MORE of a target, then of courses there's the smartphone envy! GFS are not the only school in the borough that have a no phones policy but there are plent that do allow them so I suggest Ms wells sends her beloved Britney to one of them.

Still going through the situation in my head - you send your child to school with a phone that you know is prohibited, your child is allegedly searched and caught and the school is in the big bad wolf. Hmmmm.
I have serious doubt that there's any truth to the claims of body search carried out by a male teacher on a female student. In this day and age any teacher would know better than to do something like this and considering GFS staff have been cherry picked I find these claims laughable. As a new school they've a lot to prove - yes their rules are strict but any parent with half a brain would have read the prospectus and known this. If you don't like teir policies then don't send your child there! As a prospective GFS parent this hasn't phased me In the slightest - if anything I'm grateful that the likes of mother and her offspring will be on their merry way before my child potentially starts as I can't be doing with families who think they can ignore school policy and do what suits them. Chances are that it was a fellow pupil. As others have mentioned children and adults survived without mobile phones for many years and it's a proven fact that your child having a mobile makes them MORE of a target, then of courses there's the smartphone envy! GFS are not the only school in the borough that have a no phones policy but there are plent that do allow them so I suggest Ms wells sends her beloved Britney to one of them. Still going through the situation in my head - you send your child to school with a phone that you know is prohibited, your child is allegedly searched and caught and the school is in the big bad wolf. Hmmmm. Greenwich Resident

5:25pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
DEEFEA and DAPHNER
You have a friend 'in the print'.
What as,a cleaner!
You have no idea do you?
How have these kids been exploited?
How is it defamatory,slanderou


s and libel?
A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!)
As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice.
Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it!
Now get back to making the dinner luv.
Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already)
If you are not interested and unsupportive, why race off and see the group? LOL......I think you need a real job ;)
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: DEEFEA and DAPHNER You have a friend 'in the print'. What as,a cleaner! You have no idea do you? How have these kids been exploited? How is it defamatory,slanderou s and libel? A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!) As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice. Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it! Now get back to making the dinner luv.[/p][/quote]Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already)[/p][/quote]If you are not interested and unsupportive, why race off and see the group? LOL......I think you need a real job ;) Deefea

5:28pm Thu 11 Oct 12

the wall says...

Deefea wrote:
the wall wrote:
lord righteous wrote: Please help in our quest to overturn the way in which our children have been exploited by the recent plight of Mrs Wells and he daughter. Our children have been depicted as being members of some sort of "cult" school and their faces been placed on front page of the Newsshopper for local people to view, this week. This photograph should not have been used for a cause we have not supported and not used for vindictive purposes and slander. 'overturn' what? It is already out there,too late i'm afraid! Did any parents attend the 'play' depicted in the photo,did any parents worry about or is it just now they are worried? Its a public school,they can publish photos if they want to. How have they been used for vindictive purposes and slander? The only comments on this story have been about the actual story itself and not about the photos that nobody cared about until you silly woman mentioned them!
Bang on! But this is very very funny. I posted this up in a few other forums and everyone is having a right laugh at it.
Glad it is humorous to you :) Yes please post, get the word out there. Yes we all attended and equally this was never an issue whilst the children performed their poem, ironically I would imagine you don't know much about it! Are you one of these kids parents? Or have you just too much time, as I saw you have commented on other stories.....tut tut!
No you don't understand on the other forums people are laughting at you and the other muthers. Watchdog / defamatory/ slanderous and libel - Very funny.

exploited - Have you ever seen children that are really exploited? Shame on you for even thinking that child can be compared to children in a developing country.


This is a public access website I and you can leave comments on any story NS publish. Did you not read the terms and conditions ?

What I do with my time has nothing to do with you. I have used this site for a long time. What is your issue with that? Why can't I comment on issues within my community ? Do you not believe in free speech ?
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Please help in our quest to overturn the way in which our children have been exploited by the recent plight of Mrs Wells and he daughter. Our children have been depicted as being members of some sort of "cult" school and their faces been placed on front page of the Newsshopper for local people to view, this week. This photograph should not have been used for a cause we have not supported and not used for vindictive purposes and slander. 'overturn' what? It is already out there,too late i'm afraid! Did any parents attend the 'play' depicted in the photo,did any parents worry about or is it just now they are worried? Its a public school,they can publish photos if they want to. How have they been used for vindictive purposes and slander? The only comments on this story have been about the actual story itself and not about the photos that nobody cared about until you silly woman mentioned them![/p][/quote]Bang on! But this is very very funny. I posted this up in a few other forums and everyone is having a right laugh at it.[/p][/quote]Glad it is humorous to you :) Yes please post, get the word out there. Yes we all attended and equally this was never an issue whilst the children performed their poem, ironically I would imagine you don't know much about it! Are you one of these kids parents? Or have you just too much time, as I saw you have commented on other stories.....tut tut![/p][/quote]No you don't understand on the other forums people are laughting at you and the other muthers. Watchdog / defamatory/ slanderous and libel - Very funny. exploited - Have you ever seen children that are really exploited? Shame on you for even thinking that child can be compared to children in a developing country. This is a public access website I and you can leave comments on any story NS publish. Did you not read the terms and conditions ? What I do with my time has nothing to do with you. I have used this site for a long time. What is your issue with that? Why can't I comment on issues within my community ? Do you not believe in free speech ? the wall

5:44pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

the wall wrote:
Deefea wrote:
the wall wrote:
lord righteous wrote: Please help in our quest to overturn the way in which our children have been exploited by the recent plight of Mrs Wells and he daughter. Our children have been depicted as being members of some sort of "cult" school and their faces been placed on front page of the Newsshopper for local people to view, this week. This photograph should not have been used for a cause we have not supported and not used for vindictive purposes and slander. 'overturn' what? It is already out there,too late i'm afraid! Did any parents attend the 'play' depicted in the photo,did any parents worry about or is it just now they are worried? Its a public school,they can publish photos if they want to. How have they been used for vindictive purposes and slander? The only comments on this story have been about the actual story itself and not about the photos that nobody cared about until you silly woman mentioned them!
Bang on! But this is very very funny. I posted this up in a few other forums and everyone is having a right laugh at it.
Glad it is humorous to you :) Yes please post, get the word out there. Yes we all attended and equally this was never an issue whilst the children performed their poem, ironically I would imagine you don't know much about it! Are you one of these kids parents? Or have you just too much time, as I saw you have commented on other stories.....tut tut!
No you don't understand on the other forums people are laughting at you and the other muthers. Watchdog / defamatory/ slanderous and libel - Very funny.

exploited - Have you ever seen children that are really exploited? Shame on you for even thinking that child can be compared to children in a developing country.


This is a public access website I and you can leave comments on any story NS publish. Did you not read the terms and conditions ?

What I do with my time has nothing to do with you. I have used this site for a long time. What is your issue with that? Why can't I comment on issues within my community ? Do you not believe in free speech ?
No, I totally believe in free speech, those words used that you so mock, are part of a conversation used today via advice from a public Law Service. I am happy that you feel free to comment and your opinion and mockery does not phase me. I will say this again. The photograph has been used to represent a heading which is nothing to do with the story. I stand by my child's innocent picture has been used and his presence on that stage exploited. (you may want to look up the diversity of the word) Please forgive me from any spelling errors, but I have been typing just as much as you today, and I respect the fact that it would ruin your credibility to make a spelling error. I really feel you have no argument at all, its not your child put at risk or repercussions, being so young. So please feel free to side with Mrs Wells, I think you are of the same calibre :)
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Please help in our quest to overturn the way in which our children have been exploited by the recent plight of Mrs Wells and he daughter. Our children have been depicted as being members of some sort of "cult" school and their faces been placed on front page of the Newsshopper for local people to view, this week. This photograph should not have been used for a cause we have not supported and not used for vindictive purposes and slander. 'overturn' what? It is already out there,too late i'm afraid! Did any parents attend the 'play' depicted in the photo,did any parents worry about or is it just now they are worried? Its a public school,they can publish photos if they want to. How have they been used for vindictive purposes and slander? The only comments on this story have been about the actual story itself and not about the photos that nobody cared about until you silly woman mentioned them![/p][/quote]Bang on! But this is very very funny. I posted this up in a few other forums and everyone is having a right laugh at it.[/p][/quote]Glad it is humorous to you :) Yes please post, get the word out there. Yes we all attended and equally this was never an issue whilst the children performed their poem, ironically I would imagine you don't know much about it! Are you one of these kids parents? Or have you just too much time, as I saw you have commented on other stories.....tut tut![/p][/quote]No you don't understand on the other forums people are laughting at you and the other muthers. Watchdog / defamatory/ slanderous and libel - Very funny. exploited - Have you ever seen children that are really exploited? Shame on you for even thinking that child can be compared to children in a developing country. This is a public access website I and you can leave comments on any story NS publish. Did you not read the terms and conditions ? What I do with my time has nothing to do with you. I have used this site for a long time. What is your issue with that? Why can't I comment on issues within my community ? Do you not believe in free speech ?[/p][/quote]No, I totally believe in free speech, those words used that you so mock, are part of a conversation used today via advice from a public Law Service. I am happy that you feel free to comment and your opinion and mockery does not phase me. I will say this again. The photograph has been used to represent a heading which is nothing to do with the story. I stand by my child's innocent picture has been used and his presence on that stage exploited. (you may want to look up the diversity of the word) Please forgive me from any spelling errors, but I have been typing just as much as you today, and I respect the fact that it would ruin your credibility to make a spelling error. I really feel you have no argument at all, its not your child put at risk or repercussions, being so young. So please feel free to side with Mrs Wells, I think you are of the same calibre :) Deefea

5:47pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

the wall wrote:
It's about getting £££££££££
Yawn :)
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: It's about getting £££££££££[/p][/quote]Yawn :) Deefea

5:56pm Thu 11 Oct 12

higgstheboson says...

Wow I missed a lot.

Greenwichman, I agree, any action needs to be discussed with GFS

Paulerith - News Shopper have seen fit to remove the images from this page they however may still be seen on the e edition link at the top of the page, and also in physical paper format of course. In brief a photograph of GFS pupils in uniform has been used out of context on the front page of the newspaper. Over it is large bold typeface is 'free school is a prison camp'. the children were performing a piece of poetry and were photographed in a line with their right arms raised. alongside the headline, the action is suggestive of the seig heil. the photograph took up a full half of the front page, the bottom half being dedicated to britney's mom's version of events - orat least what she chose to disclose.

clearly gfs is not a prison camp and should not be portrayed as so, as neither should it's pupils be portrayed as being affiliated to such.

the press complaints commission's editor's code of conduct appears to be clear on this issue http://www.pcc.org.u
k/cop/practice.html

I cannot speak for the GFS team but i do feel that a very visible retraction and apology is in order from the news shopper for this mess. it is clearly a very emotive issue for a number of parents and in addition I do not see it as fair that the associated GFS staff are repaid for their hard work by this pure misrepresentation of the school.

GFS cannot possibly comment on the full details of other issues surrounding britney's behaviour at GFS but yes I have personally witnessed. I too will say no more on this.

greenwich resident, i am very pleased to know that you will not be letting this 'news' item alter your good view of 'our' school and it's team. I honestly feel that we could not have chosen better for my own daughter and cannot offer enough praise. I hope your child has the luck to attend in 2013.

ps parents, ignore the internet trolls, don't even reply
Wow I missed a lot. Greenwichman, I agree, any action needs to be discussed with GFS Paulerith - News Shopper have seen fit to remove the images from this page they however may still be seen on the e edition link at the top of the page, and also in physical paper format of course. In brief a photograph of GFS pupils in uniform has been used out of context on the front page of the newspaper. Over it is large bold typeface is 'free school is a prison camp'. the children were performing a piece of poetry and were photographed in a line with their right arms raised. alongside the headline, the action is suggestive of the seig heil. the photograph took up a full half of the front page, the bottom half being dedicated to britney's mom's version of events - orat least what she chose to disclose. clearly gfs is not a prison camp and should not be portrayed as so, as neither should it's pupils be portrayed as being affiliated to such. the press complaints commission's editor's code of conduct appears to be clear on this issue http://www.pcc.org.u k/cop/practice.html I cannot speak for the GFS team but i do feel that a very visible retraction and apology is in order from the news shopper for this mess. it is clearly a very emotive issue for a number of parents and in addition I do not see it as fair that the associated GFS staff are repaid for their hard work by this pure misrepresentation of the school. GFS cannot possibly comment on the full details of other issues surrounding britney's behaviour at GFS but yes I have personally witnessed. I too will say no more on this. greenwich resident, i am very pleased to know that you will not be letting this 'news' item alter your good view of 'our' school and it's team. I honestly feel that we could not have chosen better for my own daughter and cannot offer enough praise. I hope your child has the luck to attend in 2013. ps parents, ignore the internet trolls, don't even reply higgstheboson

5:56pm Thu 11 Oct 12

higgstheboson says...

Wow I missed a lot.

Greenwichman, I agree, any action needs to be discussed with GFS

Paulerith - News Shopper have seen fit to remove the images from this page they however may still be seen on the e edition link at the top of the page, and also in physical paper format of course. In brief a photograph of GFS pupils in uniform has been used out of context on the front page of the newspaper. Over it is large bold typeface is 'free school is a prison camp'. the children were performing a piece of poetry and were photographed in a line with their right arms raised. alongside the headline, the action is suggestive of the seig heil. the photograph took up a full half of the front page, the bottom half being dedicated to britney's mom's version of events - orat least what she chose to disclose.

clearly gfs is not a prison camp and should not be portrayed as so, as neither should it's pupils be portrayed as being affiliated to such.

the press complaints commission's editor's code of conduct appears to be clear on this issue http://www.pcc.org.u
k/cop/practice.html

I cannot speak for the GFS team but i do feel that a very visible retraction and apology is in order from the news shopper for this mess. it is clearly a very emotive issue for a number of parents and in addition I do not see it as fair that the associated GFS staff are repaid for their hard work by this pure misrepresentation of the school.

GFS cannot possibly comment on the full details of other issues surrounding britney's behaviour at GFS but yes I have personally witnessed. I too will say no more on this.

greenwich resident, i am very pleased to know that you will not be letting this 'news' item alter your good view of 'our' school and it's team. I honestly feel that we could not have chosen better for my own daughter and cannot offer enough praise. I hope your child has the luck to attend in 2013.

ps parents, ignore the internet trolls, don't even reply
Wow I missed a lot. Greenwichman, I agree, any action needs to be discussed with GFS Paulerith - News Shopper have seen fit to remove the images from this page they however may still be seen on the e edition link at the top of the page, and also in physical paper format of course. In brief a photograph of GFS pupils in uniform has been used out of context on the front page of the newspaper. Over it is large bold typeface is 'free school is a prison camp'. the children were performing a piece of poetry and were photographed in a line with their right arms raised. alongside the headline, the action is suggestive of the seig heil. the photograph took up a full half of the front page, the bottom half being dedicated to britney's mom's version of events - orat least what she chose to disclose. clearly gfs is not a prison camp and should not be portrayed as so, as neither should it's pupils be portrayed as being affiliated to such. the press complaints commission's editor's code of conduct appears to be clear on this issue http://www.pcc.org.u k/cop/practice.html I cannot speak for the GFS team but i do feel that a very visible retraction and apology is in order from the news shopper for this mess. it is clearly a very emotive issue for a number of parents and in addition I do not see it as fair that the associated GFS staff are repaid for their hard work by this pure misrepresentation of the school. GFS cannot possibly comment on the full details of other issues surrounding britney's behaviour at GFS but yes I have personally witnessed. I too will say no more on this. greenwich resident, i am very pleased to know that you will not be letting this 'news' item alter your good view of 'our' school and it's team. I honestly feel that we could not have chosen better for my own daughter and cannot offer enough praise. I hope your child has the luck to attend in 2013. ps parents, ignore the internet trolls, don't even reply higgstheboson

5:56pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

PaulErith wrote:
Sorry, I'm probably being really stupid so I expect to be ribbed if I'm missing something obvious....but what photos are we talking about??? I can only see one photo in this story and that's of the Mum and the girl who are daftly banging on about a mobile phone. Maybe it's my browser not displaying them, but where are these other pics that are everyone's going on about?
Funnily enough, the photos have been removed. I would say this is their first admission of guilt. But there are also a few people on here who like to "rib" for the sake of "ribbing" so yes, best to approach with caution :)
Just to keep you posted, the photo showed a group of children acting out their poem, with masks on, however, there were also photographs of children face on. Unfortunately, the stance in the photo could be seen, along with Newsshoppers Heading, as defamatory due to the insinuation of the term "Prison Camp" and the very cunning way Newsshopper has put the story together. Which in fact has NOTHING to do with the actual story regarding a child being searched for taking a phone to school!
[quote][p][bold]PaulErith[/bold] wrote: Sorry, I'm probably being really stupid so I expect to be ribbed if I'm missing something obvious....but what photos are we talking about??? I can only see one photo in this story and that's of the Mum and the girl who are daftly banging on about a mobile phone. Maybe it's my browser not displaying them, but where are these other pics that are everyone's going on about?[/p][/quote]Funnily enough, the photos have been removed. I would say this is their first admission of guilt. But there are also a few people on here who like to "rib" for the sake of "ribbing" so yes, best to approach with caution :) Just to keep you posted, the photo showed a group of children acting out their poem, with masks on, however, there were also photographs of children face on. Unfortunately, the stance in the photo could be seen, along with Newsshoppers Heading, as defamatory due to the insinuation of the term "Prison Camp" and the very cunning way Newsshopper has put the story together. Which in fact has NOTHING to do with the actual story regarding a child being searched for taking a phone to school! Deefea

6:02pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

higgstheboson wrote:
Wow I missed a lot.

Greenwichman, I agree, any action needs to be discussed with GFS

Paulerith - News Shopper have seen fit to remove the images from this page they however may still be seen on the e edition link at the top of the page, and also in physical paper format of course. In brief a photograph of GFS pupils in uniform has been used out of context on the front page of the newspaper. Over it is large bold typeface is 'free school is a prison camp'. the children were performing a piece of poetry and were photographed in a line with their right arms raised. alongside the headline, the action is suggestive of the seig heil. the photograph took up a full half of the front page, the bottom half being dedicated to britney's mom's version of events - orat least what she chose to disclose.

clearly gfs is not a prison camp and should not be portrayed as so, as neither should it's pupils be portrayed as being affiliated to such.

the press complaints commission's editor's code of conduct appears to be clear on this issue http://www.pcc.org.u

k/cop/practice.html

I cannot speak for the GFS team but i do feel that a very visible retraction and apology is in order from the news shopper for this mess. it is clearly a very emotive issue for a number of parents and in addition I do not see it as fair that the associated GFS staff are repaid for their hard work by this pure misrepresentation of the school.

GFS cannot possibly comment on the full details of other issues surrounding britney's behaviour at GFS but yes I have personally witnessed. I too will say no more on this.

greenwich resident, i am very pleased to know that you will not be letting this 'news' item alter your good view of 'our' school and it's team. I honestly feel that we could not have chosen better for my own daughter and cannot offer enough praise. I hope your child has the luck to attend in 2013.

ps parents, ignore the internet trolls, don't even reply
Thank you, the facebook group was merely to be able to connect with others and avoid the trolls. It was not to persue a witch hunt by any means, but to allow a more visible area to discuss and see if we can achieve the apology that I feel my child deserves. It is a public site, that I am aware and I do hope that no one loses site of the fantastic school that my child attends who in no way at all supports this story, nor the photographs used in such a way. I cannot comment for the staff at GFS or their views, but they are aware of my presence on here and all communications from NS have been communicated. Many Thanks :)
[quote][p][bold]higgstheboson[/bold] wrote: Wow I missed a lot. Greenwichman, I agree, any action needs to be discussed with GFS Paulerith - News Shopper have seen fit to remove the images from this page they however may still be seen on the e edition link at the top of the page, and also in physical paper format of course. In brief a photograph of GFS pupils in uniform has been used out of context on the front page of the newspaper. Over it is large bold typeface is 'free school is a prison camp'. the children were performing a piece of poetry and were photographed in a line with their right arms raised. alongside the headline, the action is suggestive of the seig heil. the photograph took up a full half of the front page, the bottom half being dedicated to britney's mom's version of events - orat least what she chose to disclose. clearly gfs is not a prison camp and should not be portrayed as so, as neither should it's pupils be portrayed as being affiliated to such. the press complaints commission's editor's code of conduct appears to be clear on this issue http://www.pcc.org.u k/cop/practice.html I cannot speak for the GFS team but i do feel that a very visible retraction and apology is in order from the news shopper for this mess. it is clearly a very emotive issue for a number of parents and in addition I do not see it as fair that the associated GFS staff are repaid for their hard work by this pure misrepresentation of the school. GFS cannot possibly comment on the full details of other issues surrounding britney's behaviour at GFS but yes I have personally witnessed. I too will say no more on this. greenwich resident, i am very pleased to know that you will not be letting this 'news' item alter your good view of 'our' school and it's team. I honestly feel that we could not have chosen better for my own daughter and cannot offer enough praise. I hope your child has the luck to attend in 2013. ps parents, ignore the internet trolls, don't even reply[/p][/quote]Thank you, the facebook group was merely to be able to connect with others and avoid the trolls. It was not to persue a witch hunt by any means, but to allow a more visible area to discuss and see if we can achieve the apology that I feel my child deserves. It is a public site, that I am aware and I do hope that no one loses site of the fantastic school that my child attends who in no way at all supports this story, nor the photographs used in such a way. I cannot comment for the staff at GFS or their views, but they are aware of my presence on here and all communications from NS have been communicated. Many Thanks :) Deefea

6:11pm Thu 11 Oct 12

higgstheboson says...

dee fea :O) i didn't mean to insinuate anything near a witch hunt, sorry if it came across that way. we will get our heads together very soon i'm sure :O)
dee fea :O) i didn't mean to insinuate anything near a witch hunt, sorry if it came across that way. we will get our heads together very soon i'm sure :O) higgstheboson

6:13pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

Deefea wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
DEEFEA and DAPHNER
You have a friend 'in the print'.
What as,a cleaner!
You have no idea do you?
How have these kids been exploited?
How is it defamatory,slanderou



s and libel?
A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!)
As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice.
Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it!
Now get back to making the dinner luv.
Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already)
If you are not interested and unsupportive, why race off and see the group? LOL......I think you need a real job ;)
Correction for the record:
libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation,
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: DEEFEA and DAPHNER You have a friend 'in the print'. What as,a cleaner! You have no idea do you? How have these kids been exploited? How is it defamatory,slanderou s and libel? A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!) As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice. Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it! Now get back to making the dinner luv.[/p][/quote]Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already)[/p][/quote]If you are not interested and unsupportive, why race off and see the group? LOL......I think you need a real job ;)[/p][/quote]Correction for the record: libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, Deefea

6:13pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

Deefea wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
DEEFEA and DAPHNER
You have a friend 'in the print'.
What as,a cleaner!
You have no idea do you?
How have these kids been exploited?
How is it defamatory,slanderou



s and libel?
A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!)
As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice.
Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it!
Now get back to making the dinner luv.
Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already)
If you are not interested and unsupportive, why race off and see the group? LOL......I think you need a real job ;)
Correction for the record:
libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation,
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: DEEFEA and DAPHNER You have a friend 'in the print'. What as,a cleaner! You have no idea do you? How have these kids been exploited? How is it defamatory,slanderou s and libel? A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!) As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice. Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it! Now get back to making the dinner luv.[/p][/quote]Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already)[/p][/quote]If you are not interested and unsupportive, why race off and see the group? LOL......I think you need a real job ;)[/p][/quote]Correction for the record: libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, Deefea

6:24pm Thu 11 Oct 12

Deefea says...

higgstheboson wrote:
dee fea :O) i didn't mean to insinuate anything near a witch hunt, sorry if it came across that way. we will get our heads together very soon i'm sure :O)
No! It did not at all! I just realised that it may look as though I wish to build momentum and raise a group. Perhaps a little hasty in word, but the thought behind it was to offer a little privacy to those concerned and a face to the name. All I would like is an apology, to rectify their mistake and I can then feel satisfied that their mistake with this front page has been accepted :)
[quote][p][bold]higgstheboson[/bold] wrote: dee fea :O) i didn't mean to insinuate anything near a witch hunt, sorry if it came across that way. we will get our heads together very soon i'm sure :O)[/p][/quote]No! It did not at all! I just realised that it may look as though I wish to build momentum and raise a group. Perhaps a little hasty in word, but the thought behind it was to offer a little privacy to those concerned and a face to the name. All I would like is an apology, to rectify their mistake and I can then feel satisfied that their mistake with this front page has been accepted :) Deefea

6:56pm Thu 11 Oct 12

phoenixrising1 says...

the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .
Have none of you women got jobs ?
Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .
"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ?

phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well)


sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet?

multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand.

Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling.

How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers?

"counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?
You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females.

You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made .

I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know

Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people .

Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ?

You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . .

And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response .

I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .[/p][/quote]Have none of you women got jobs ?[/p][/quote]Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .[/p][/quote]"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?[/p][/quote]You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings . phoenixrising1

7:07pm Thu 11 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

Deefea wrote:
Deefea wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
DEEFEA and DAPHNER
You have a friend 'in the print'.
What as,a cleaner!
You have no idea do you?
How have these kids been exploited?
How is it defamatory,slanderou




s and libel?
A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!)
As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice.
Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it!
Now get back to making the dinner luv.
Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already)
If you are not interested and unsupportive, why race off and see the group? LOL......I think you need a real job ;)
Correction for the record:
libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation,
So in which part of this definition does the picture you are compaining about fall?
You might well get an apology from the school,from NS or both,but you lot are getting ridiculous about a photo that no-one noticed.
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: DEEFEA and DAPHNER You have a friend 'in the print'. What as,a cleaner! You have no idea do you? How have these kids been exploited? How is it defamatory,slanderou s and libel? A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!) As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice. Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it! Now get back to making the dinner luv.[/p][/quote]Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already)[/p][/quote]If you are not interested and unsupportive, why race off and see the group? LOL......I think you need a real job ;)[/p][/quote]Correction for the record: libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation,[/p][/quote]So in which part of this definition does the picture you are compaining about fall? You might well get an apology from the school,from NS or both,but you lot are getting ridiculous about a photo that no-one noticed. lord righteous

7:11pm Thu 11 Oct 12

pupil in greenwich free school says...

well I would just like to say that none of the teachers body search us and also I think that she is overreacting I lost my phone recently and got an exclusion but my mum agrees with them and although I was angry I understood why. My mum also says we don't need wasters in this school all the parents were aware of the rules then why are you complaining.
well I would just like to say that none of the teachers body search us and also I think that she is overreacting I lost my phone recently and got an exclusion but my mum agrees with them and although I was angry I understood why. My mum also says we don't need wasters in this school all the parents were aware of the rules then why are you complaining. pupil in greenwich free school

7:14pm Thu 11 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

Just had a look at the photo in the digital edition,thats journalism!!!!!
Come on,you can see only 1 face and even that is side on and part obscured by another kid.Get on with your lives and stop moaning.
Back to the original article now,when 'searched' i believe a fake phone was found with sweets in it.
Again,looking at the digital edition (the photos are different from here) it would appear sweets are the last thing the girl needs.Fruit and fibre yes,sweets no no no.
Just had a look at the photo in the digital edition,thats journalism!!!!! Come on,you can see only 1 face and even that is side on and part obscured by another kid.Get on with your lives and stop moaning. Back to the original article now,when 'searched' i believe a fake phone was found with sweets in it. Again,looking at the digital edition (the photos are different from here) it would appear sweets are the last thing the girl needs.Fruit and fibre yes,sweets no no no. lord righteous

7:28pm Thu 11 Oct 12

higgstheboson says...

first packet of sweets that i've heard of that rings out during assembly.

sweets are not allowed (as with the case of the large majority of responsible schools), instead healthy snacks are encouraged.

i hardly think a personal attack on the child's weight is appropriate, helpful or adult here.

there's journalism and there's bad journalism. see press complaints commission and their editor's code of conduct for clarity.

large front page photograph in a paper with a local circulation of 40,000...yes people noticed

i will now revert to most pleasantly ignoring you.
first packet of sweets that i've heard of that rings out during assembly. sweets are not allowed (as with the case of the large majority of responsible schools), instead healthy snacks are encouraged. i hardly think a personal attack on the child's weight is appropriate, helpful or adult here. there's journalism and there's bad journalism. see press complaints commission and their editor's code of conduct for clarity. large front page photograph in a paper with a local circulation of 40,000...yes people noticed i will now revert to most pleasantly ignoring you. higgstheboson

7:37pm Thu 11 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

higgstheboson wrote:
first packet of sweets that i've heard of that rings out during assembly.

sweets are not allowed (as with the case of the large majority of responsible schools), instead healthy snacks are encouraged.

i hardly think a personal attack on the child's weight is appropriate, helpful or adult here.

there's journalism and there's bad journalism. see press complaints commission and their editor's code of conduct for clarity.

large front page photograph in a paper with a local circulation of 40,000...yes people noticed

i will now revert to most pleasantly ignoring you.
If you took the time to actually read the story you would know what i am talking about! (re fake phone)
Try using capital letters to start your sentences,people then might believe your efforts in convincing them of your greater education and intellect!
[quote][p][bold]higgstheboson[/bold] wrote: first packet of sweets that i've heard of that rings out during assembly. sweets are not allowed (as with the case of the large majority of responsible schools), instead healthy snacks are encouraged. i hardly think a personal attack on the child's weight is appropriate, helpful or adult here. there's journalism and there's bad journalism. see press complaints commission and their editor's code of conduct for clarity. large front page photograph in a paper with a local circulation of 40,000...yes people noticed i will now revert to most pleasantly ignoring you.[/p][/quote]If you took the time to actually read the story you would know what i am talking about! (re fake phone) Try using capital letters to start your sentences,people then might believe your efforts in convincing them of your greater education and intellect! lord righteous

7:57pm Thu 11 Oct 12

phoenixrising1 says...

Deefea wrote:
the wall wrote:
Deefea wrote:
the wall wrote:
lord righteous wrote: Please help in our quest to overturn the way in which our children have been exploited by the recent plight of Mrs Wells and he daughter. Our children have been depicted as being members of some sort of "cult" school and their faces been placed on front page of the Newsshopper for local people to view, this week. This photograph should not have been used for a cause we have not supported and not used for vindictive purposes and slander. 'overturn' what? It is already out there,too late i'm afraid! Did any parents attend the 'play' depicted in the photo,did any parents worry about or is it just now they are worried? Its a public school,they can publish photos if they want to. How have they been used for vindictive purposes and slander? The only comments on this story have been about the actual story itself and not about the photos that nobody cared about until you silly woman mentioned them!
Bang on! But this is very very funny. I posted this up in a few other forums and everyone is having a right laugh at it.
Glad it is humorous to you :) Yes please post, get the word out there. Yes we all attended and equally this was never an issue whilst the children performed their poem, ironically I would imagine you don't know much about it! Are you one of these kids parents? Or have you just too much time, as I saw you have commented on other stories.....tut tut!
No you don't understand on the other forums people are laughting at you and the other muthers. Watchdog / defamatory/ slanderous and libel - Very funny.

exploited - Have you ever seen children that are really exploited? Shame on you for even thinking that child can be compared to children in a developing country.


This is a public access website I and you can leave comments on any story NS publish. Did you not read the terms and conditions ?

What I do with my time has nothing to do with you. I have used this site for a long time. What is your issue with that? Why can't I comment on issues within my community ? Do you not believe in free speech ?
No, I totally believe in free speech, those words used that you so mock, are part of a conversation used today via advice from a public Law Service. I am happy that you feel free to comment and your opinion and mockery does not phase me. I will say this again. The photograph has been used to represent a heading which is nothing to do with the story. I stand by my child's innocent picture has been used and his presence on that stage exploited. (you may want to look up the diversity of the word) Please forgive me from any spelling errors, but I have been typing just as much as you today, and I respect the fact that it would ruin your credibility to make a spelling error. I really feel you have no argument at all, its not your child put at risk or repercussions, being so young. So please feel free to side with Mrs Wells, I think you are of the same calibre :)
the wall , im interested in your use of the term " muthers " . Why do you hate mums , do you not have a good relationship with yours ?

Did she not advocate on your behalf the way we are doing for our own children , is that where the resentment comes from , she didnt love you enough , your jealous ?

In your other posts you show this hatred of women , are you struggling to get a girlfriend , maybe youve been dumped , and are frustrated ?

Is that why you feel the need to post these comments on other forums , because you are insecure and want to feel important ? Are you looking for attention , some sort of validation ? Do you have any real friends ?

Im sorry if you had a difficult childhood that left you so scarred an unable to socialise normally and have any kind of female interaction , but being a troll , and sharing your comments with other trolls , isnt really friendship . Try and find yourself a local support group where you can meet people , and get out a bit more , then you wont have to get involved in other peoples concerns , which have absolutely nothing to do with you .
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Please help in our quest to overturn the way in which our children have been exploited by the recent plight of Mrs Wells and he daughter. Our children have been depicted as being members of some sort of "cult" school and their faces been placed on front page of the Newsshopper for local people to view, this week. This photograph should not have been used for a cause we have not supported and not used for vindictive purposes and slander. 'overturn' what? It is already out there,too late i'm afraid! Did any parents attend the 'play' depicted in the photo,did any parents worry about or is it just now they are worried? Its a public school,they can publish photos if they want to. How have they been used for vindictive purposes and slander? The only comments on this story have been about the actual story itself and not about the photos that nobody cared about until you silly woman mentioned them![/p][/quote]Bang on! But this is very very funny. I posted this up in a few other forums and everyone is having a right laugh at it.[/p][/quote]Glad it is humorous to you :) Yes please post, get the word out there. Yes we all attended and equally this was never an issue whilst the children performed their poem, ironically I would imagine you don't know much about it! Are you one of these kids parents? Or have you just too much time, as I saw you have commented on other stories.....tut tut![/p][/quote]No you don't understand on the other forums people are laughting at you and the other muthers. Watchdog / defamatory/ slanderous and libel - Very funny. exploited - Have you ever seen children that are really exploited? Shame on you for even thinking that child can be compared to children in a developing country. This is a public access website I and you can leave comments on any story NS publish. Did you not read the terms and conditions ? What I do with my time has nothing to do with you. I have used this site for a long time. What is your issue with that? Why can't I comment on issues within my community ? Do you not believe in free speech ?[/p][/quote]No, I totally believe in free speech, those words used that you so mock, are part of a conversation used today via advice from a public Law Service. I am happy that you feel free to comment and your opinion and mockery does not phase me. I will say this again. The photograph has been used to represent a heading which is nothing to do with the story. I stand by my child's innocent picture has been used and his presence on that stage exploited. (you may want to look up the diversity of the word) Please forgive me from any spelling errors, but I have been typing just as much as you today, and I respect the fact that it would ruin your credibility to make a spelling error. I really feel you have no argument at all, its not your child put at risk or repercussions, being so young. So please feel free to side with Mrs Wells, I think you are of the same calibre :)[/p][/quote]the wall , im interested in your use of the term " muthers " . Why do you hate mums , do you not have a good relationship with yours ? Did she not advocate on your behalf the way we are doing for our own children , is that where the resentment comes from , she didnt love you enough , your jealous ? In your other posts you show this hatred of women , are you struggling to get a girlfriend , maybe youve been dumped , and are frustrated ? Is that why you feel the need to post these comments on other forums , because you are insecure and want to feel important ? Are you looking for attention , some sort of validation ? Do you have any real friends ? Im sorry if you had a difficult childhood that left you so scarred an unable to socialise normally and have any kind of female interaction , but being a troll , and sharing your comments with other trolls , isnt really friendship . Try and find yourself a local support group where you can meet people , and get out a bit more , then you wont have to get involved in other peoples concerns , which have absolutely nothing to do with you . phoenixrising1

8:04pm Thu 11 Oct 12

phoenixrising1 says...

pupil in greenwich free school wrote:
well I would just like to say that none of the teachers body search us and also I think that she is overreacting I lost my phone recently and got an exclusion but my mum agrees with them and although I was angry I understood why. My mum also says we don't need wasters in this school all the parents were aware of the rules then why are you complaining.
Good for you pupil .

After all , its all about you , and your education , so well done for getting involved and standing up for what you believe in .

You are just than kind of pupil that makes GFS a brilliant school , you should be proud .

Well done .
[quote][p][bold]pupil in greenwich free school[/bold] wrote: well I would just like to say that none of the teachers body search us and also I think that she is overreacting I lost my phone recently and got an exclusion but my mum agrees with them and although I was angry I understood why. My mum also says we don't need wasters in this school all the parents were aware of the rules then why are you complaining.[/p][/quote]Good for you pupil . After all , its all about you , and your education , so well done for getting involved and standing up for what you believe in . You are just than kind of pupil that makes GFS a brilliant school , you should be proud . Well done . phoenixrising1

12:34am Fri 12 Oct 12

ztania97 says...

lord righteous wrote:
Deefea wrote:
Deefea wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
DEEFEA and DAPHNER
You have a friend 'in the print'.
What as,a cleaner!
You have no idea do you?
How have these kids been exploited?
How is it defamatory,slanderou





s and libel?
A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!)
As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice.
Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it!
Now get back to making the dinner luv.
Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already)
If you are not interested and unsupportive, why race off and see the group? LOL......I think you need a real job ;)
Correction for the record:
libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation,
So in which part of this definition does the picture you are compaining about fall?
You might well get an apology from the school,from NS or both,but you lot are getting ridiculous about a photo that no-one noticed.
i decided not to comment re the photo before seeing it first. Just found it online and i am just gutted. It is used completely out of context, gives a wrong impression. My son is on it and we feel like we've been used by newspaper to give our school a negative publicity.
If anyone don't know - the kids were reading a poem "faceless" by Benjamin Zephaniah:
"You have to look beyond the face
to see the person true,
Deep down within my inner space
I am the same as you......"
It's a beautiful poem and gives a positive message for people who don't have hope. The newspaper demonstrated a peace of YELLOW JOURNALISM. I am sure intelligent people will understand this. An apology from NS must follow.
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: DEEFEA and DAPHNER You have a friend 'in the print'. What as,a cleaner! You have no idea do you? How have these kids been exploited? How is it defamatory,slanderou s and libel? A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!) As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice. Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it! Now get back to making the dinner luv.[/p][/quote]Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already)[/p][/quote]If you are not interested and unsupportive, why race off and see the group? LOL......I think you need a real job ;)[/p][/quote]Correction for the record: libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation,[/p][/quote]So in which part of this definition does the picture you are compaining about fall? You might well get an apology from the school,from NS or both,but you lot are getting ridiculous about a photo that no-one noticed.[/p][/quote]i decided not to comment re the photo before seeing it first. Just found it online and i am just gutted. It is used completely out of context, gives a wrong impression. My son is on it and we feel like we've been used by newspaper to give our school a negative publicity. If anyone don't know - the kids were reading a poem "faceless" by Benjamin Zephaniah: "You have to look beyond the face to see the person true, Deep down within my inner space I am the same as you......" It's a beautiful poem and gives a positive message for people who don't have hope. The newspaper demonstrated a peace of YELLOW JOURNALISM. I am sure intelligent people will understand this. An apology from NS must follow. ztania97

8:22am Fri 12 Oct 12

Deefea says...

lord righteous wrote:
Deefea wrote:
Deefea wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
DEEFEA and DAPHNER
You have a friend 'in the print'.
What as,a cleaner!
You have no idea do you?
How have these kids been exploited?
How is it defamatory,slanderou





s and libel?
A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!)
As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice.
Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it!
Now get back to making the dinner luv.
Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already)
If you are not interested and unsupportive, why race off and see the group? LOL......I think you need a real job ;)
Correction for the record:
libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation,
So in which part of this definition does the picture you are compaining about fall?
You might well get an apology from the school,from NS or both,but you lot are getting ridiculous about a photo that no-one noticed.
Oh dear, you really do struggle don't you. Never mind, we won't tell anyone you were wrong with your earlier statement over libel, could affect your ability to fool people of your own intelligence; you should really consider a refresher course to maintain your public front, otherwise one might suggest you are without doubt an imposter; an imposter who pretends to be educated and be able to share a reasonable argument amongst educated people.

Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that you would most certainly have benefitted from GFS, had a school of its calibre been available to you in your time; manners, attitude and self awareness are high on their list of priorities, you seem to lack all three quite evidently! GFS also offer help and support with confidence, perhaps you need to believe in yourself a little more so that you may have a real life.
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: DEEFEA and DAPHNER You have a friend 'in the print'. What as,a cleaner! You have no idea do you? How have these kids been exploited? How is it defamatory,slanderou s and libel? A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!) As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice. Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it! Now get back to making the dinner luv.[/p][/quote]Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already)[/p][/quote]If you are not interested and unsupportive, why race off and see the group? LOL......I think you need a real job ;)[/p][/quote]Correction for the record: libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation,[/p][/quote]So in which part of this definition does the picture you are compaining about fall? You might well get an apology from the school,from NS or both,but you lot are getting ridiculous about a photo that no-one noticed.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, you really do struggle don't you. Never mind, we won't tell anyone you were wrong with your earlier statement over libel, could affect your ability to fool people of your own intelligence; you should really consider a refresher course to maintain your public front, otherwise one might suggest you are without doubt an imposter; an imposter who pretends to be educated and be able to share a reasonable argument amongst educated people. Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that you would most certainly have benefitted from GFS, had a school of its calibre been available to you in your time; manners, attitude and self awareness are high on their list of priorities, you seem to lack all three quite evidently! GFS also offer help and support with confidence, perhaps you need to believe in yourself a little more so that you may have a real life. Deefea

8:32am Fri 12 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

Just face facts.
You are just a moaning minnie with nothing better to do.Its not like your kids,even though you could just about see 1 of them, where 'put at risk' of anything.
I really cannot see what all the fuss is about!
Typical of today though,you have the mum in the original story moaning about something that she signed up 'not to do',and then did it.
Then you have you lot moaning about a single photo that you lot claim puts your child at risk,is defamatory,slanderou
s and libelous.
Go on then,use your superior brain,hire a lawyer,take all and sundry to court (thats what it is about,'compo' time) and see where you get.
How can so many different people complain about their kid in the photo when only 1 face is visible?
Thats why so many kids today are the way they are,they have parents like you moaning left right and centre about how their kids are being treated unfairly.
I hope the NS does apologise,it will get rid of you lot
Just face facts. You are just a moaning minnie with nothing better to do.Its not like your kids,even though you could just about see 1 of them, where 'put at risk' of anything. I really cannot see what all the fuss is about! Typical of today though,you have the mum in the original story moaning about something that she signed up 'not to do',and then did it. Then you have you lot moaning about a single photo that you lot claim puts your child at risk,is defamatory,slanderou s and libelous. Go on then,use your superior brain,hire a lawyer,take all and sundry to court (thats what it is about,'compo' time) and see where you get. How can so many different people complain about their kid in the photo when only 1 face is visible? Thats why so many kids today are the way they are,they have parents like you moaning left right and centre about how their kids are being treated unfairly. I hope the NS does apologise,it will get rid of you lot lord righteous

9:02am Fri 12 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

"Greenwich Free School 'prison camp' searches for mobile phones" is the newspaper headline.
One of the pictures used is of pupils (except 1) with paper plates strapped to their faces.
Please tell me where the children have been defamed,libeled or slandered or put at risk?
"Greenwich Free School 'prison camp' searches for mobile phones" is the newspaper headline. One of the pictures used is of pupils (except 1) with paper plates strapped to their faces. Please tell me where the children have been defamed,libeled or slandered or put at risk? lord righteous

9:04am Fri 12 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Deefea wrote:
Deefea wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
DEEFEA and DAPHNER
You have a friend 'in the print'.
What as,a cleaner!
You have no idea do you?
How have these kids been exploited?
How is it defamatory,slanderou






s and libel?
A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!)
As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice.
Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it!
Now get back to making the dinner luv.
Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already)
If you are not interested and unsupportive, why race off and see the group? LOL......I think you need a real job ;)
Correction for the record:
libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation,
So in which part of this definition does the picture you are compaining about fall?
You might well get an apology from the school,from NS or both,but you lot are getting ridiculous about a photo that no-one noticed.
Oh dear, you really do struggle don't you. Never mind, we won't tell anyone you were wrong with your earlier statement over libel, could affect your ability to fool people of your own intelligence; you should really consider a refresher course to maintain your public front, otherwise one might suggest you are without doubt an imposter; an imposter who pretends to be educated and be able to share a reasonable argument amongst educated people.

Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that you would most certainly have benefitted from GFS, had a school of its calibre been available to you in your time; manners, attitude and self awareness are high on their list of priorities, you seem to lack all three quite evidently! GFS also offer help and support with confidence, perhaps you need to believe in yourself a little more so that you may have a real life.
Last line of yours...pot and kettle!
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: DEEFEA and DAPHNER You have a friend 'in the print'. What as,a cleaner! You have no idea do you? How have these kids been exploited? How is it defamatory,slanderou s and libel? A photo cannot be slanderous or libel (your spelling!) As said before..if you hadn't mentioned the innoccuous photos no one would have taken any notice. Good luck with your facebook campaign,you're going to need it! Now get back to making the dinner luv.[/p][/quote]Its not the photo on its own, its the depiction of the heading. have you been reading this??? Are you the News Paper free rep?? Oh dear, I bet your wife loves you! (if she hasn't left already)[/p][/quote]If you are not interested and unsupportive, why race off and see the group? LOL......I think you need a real job ;)[/p][/quote]Correction for the record: libel 1) n. to publish in print (including pictures), writing or broadcast through radio, television or film, an untruth about another which will do harm to that person or his/her reputation, by tending to bring the target into ridicule, hatred, scorn or contempt of others. Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation,[/p][/quote]So in which part of this definition does the picture you are compaining about fall? You might well get an apology from the school,from NS or both,but you lot are getting ridiculous about a photo that no-one noticed.[/p][/quote]Oh dear, you really do struggle don't you. Never mind, we won't tell anyone you were wrong with your earlier statement over libel, could affect your ability to fool people of your own intelligence; you should really consider a refresher course to maintain your public front, otherwise one might suggest you are without doubt an imposter; an imposter who pretends to be educated and be able to share a reasonable argument amongst educated people. Yes, there is no doubt in my mind that you would most certainly have benefitted from GFS, had a school of its calibre been available to you in your time; manners, attitude and self awareness are high on their list of priorities, you seem to lack all three quite evidently! GFS also offer help and support with confidence, perhaps you need to believe in yourself a little more so that you may have a real life.[/p][/quote]Last line of yours...pot and kettle! lord righteous

9:25am Fri 12 Oct 12

Deefea says...

lord righteous wrote:
Just face facts.
You are just a moaning minnie with nothing better to do.Its not like your kids,even though you could just about see 1 of them, where 'put at risk' of anything.
I really cannot see what all the fuss is about!
Typical of today though,you have the mum in the original story moaning about something that she signed up 'not to do',and then did it.
Then you have you lot moaning about a single photo that you lot claim puts your child at risk,is defamatory,slanderou

s and libelous.
Go on then,use your superior brain,hire a lawyer,take all and sundry to court (thats what it is about,'compo' time) and see where you get.
How can so many different people complain about their kid in the photo when only 1 face is visible?
Thats why so many kids today are the way they are,they have parents like you moaning left right and centre about how their kids are being treated unfairly.
I hope the NS does apologise,it will get rid of you lot
I think its actually more embarrassing that I have a right to have a say here, as its my child, whereas you stalk web pages within your work hours whilst getting paid to do a job you clearly are not doing! (Glad you fulfilled your career as a non entity) to leave snide comments that have no substance. I think if you actually look at the problem with society, its you. You are one big ball of irony and you don't even know what you agree/disagree with, no continuity and no reason to be here. You must be very bored. We all laughed too when we saw your comments elsewhere on other stories etc, sums you up nicely! I think Pot Kettle Black actually refers to you. My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses a **** like you. (excuse the profanity I could not think of a more appropriate word, hope you understand how much it suits you). Oh and in your angry button bashing, you have let your grammar slide........what a shame :(
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Just face facts. You are just a moaning minnie with nothing better to do.Its not like your kids,even though you could just about see 1 of them, where 'put at risk' of anything. I really cannot see what all the fuss is about! Typical of today though,you have the mum in the original story moaning about something that she signed up 'not to do',and then did it. Then you have you lot moaning about a single photo that you lot claim puts your child at risk,is defamatory,slanderou s and libelous. Go on then,use your superior brain,hire a lawyer,take all and sundry to court (thats what it is about,'compo' time) and see where you get. How can so many different people complain about their kid in the photo when only 1 face is visible? Thats why so many kids today are the way they are,they have parents like you moaning left right and centre about how their kids are being treated unfairly. I hope the NS does apologise,it will get rid of you lot[/p][/quote]I think its actually more embarrassing that I have a right to have a say here, as its my child, whereas you stalk web pages within your work hours whilst getting paid to do a job you clearly are not doing! (Glad you fulfilled your career as a non entity) to leave snide comments that have no substance. I think if you actually look at the problem with society, its you. You are one big ball of irony and you don't even know what you agree/disagree with, no continuity and no reason to be here. You must be very bored. We all laughed too when we saw your comments elsewhere on other stories etc, sums you up nicely! I think Pot Kettle Black actually refers to you. My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses a **** like you. (excuse the profanity I could not think of a more appropriate word, hope you understand how much it suits you). Oh and in your angry button bashing, you have let your grammar slide........what a shame :( Deefea

9:28am Fri 12 Oct 12

Deefea says...

the profanity started with T and then a W, next was A, finally ending in T. I think it you put Lord in front of that, would be perfectly appropriate ;)

Over and out all, have a good day :)
the profanity started with T and then a W, next was A, finally ending in T. I think it you put Lord in front of that, would be perfectly appropriate ;) Over and out all, have a good day :) Deefea

9:51am Fri 12 Oct 12

the wall says...

phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .
Have none of you women got jobs ?
Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .
"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?
You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .
LOL you really think you can tell all that from words on a screen. I really can't be bothered to even start to reply.

Maybe you should re read some of your comments and see who statrted with the childish insults.

Do I care if my views upsets people...... no!
[quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .[/p][/quote]Have none of you women got jobs ?[/p][/quote]Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .[/p][/quote]"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?[/p][/quote]You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .[/p][/quote]LOL you really think you can tell all that from words on a screen. I really can't be bothered to even start to reply. Maybe you should re read some of your comments and see who statrted with the childish insults. Do I care if my views upsets people...... no! the wall

9:55am Fri 12 Oct 12

higgstheboson says...

my final comment on this thread;

re below link - refer to 1) access parts i,ii, & iii...and possibly 6) ii

http://www.pcc.org.u
k/assets/696/Code_of
_Practice_2012_A4.pd
f

i don't even see that miss wells actually said 'free school is like a prison camp' as was the headline in quotation marks in the printed edition. something similiar at the end of the piece but not those exact words.

whether the school is supportive of any individuals taking up the matter on an individual basis with the press complaints commission i really don't know. i've simply placed the above link for information.
my final comment on this thread; re below link - refer to 1) access parts i,ii, & iii...and possibly 6) ii http://www.pcc.org.u k/assets/696/Code_of _Practice_2012_A4.pd f i don't even see that miss wells actually said 'free school is like a prison camp' as was the headline in quotation marks in the printed edition. something similiar at the end of the piece but not those exact words. whether the school is supportive of any individuals taking up the matter on an individual basis with the press complaints commission i really don't know. i've simply placed the above link for information. higgstheboson

9:58am Fri 12 Oct 12

the wall says...

Didn't I read somewhere that the parents signed a consent form for photos to be taken and used.

Yet they are having a go at the woman in the report for signing an agreement then breaking it.
Didn't I read somewhere that the parents signed a consent form for photos to be taken and used. Yet they are having a go at the woman in the report for signing an agreement then breaking it. the wall

10:22am Fri 12 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Just face facts.
You are just a moaning minnie with nothing better to do.Its not like your kids,even though you could just about see 1 of them, where 'put at risk' of anything.
I really cannot see what all the fuss is about!
Typical of today though,you have the mum in the original story moaning about something that she signed up 'not to do',and then did it.
Then you have you lot moaning about a single photo that you lot claim puts your child at risk,is defamatory,slanderou


s and libelous.
Go on then,use your superior brain,hire a lawyer,take all and sundry to court (thats what it is about,'compo' time) and see where you get.
How can so many different people complain about their kid in the photo when only 1 face is visible?
Thats why so many kids today are the way they are,they have parents like you moaning left right and centre about how their kids are being treated unfairly.
I hope the NS does apologise,it will get rid of you lot
I think its actually more embarrassing that I have a right to have a say here, as its my child, whereas you stalk web pages within your work hours whilst getting paid to do a job you clearly are not doing! (Glad you fulfilled your career as a non entity) to leave snide comments that have no substance. I think if you actually look at the problem with society, its you. You are one big ball of irony and you don't even know what you agree/disagree with, no continuity and no reason to be here. You must be very bored. We all laughed too when we saw your comments elsewhere on other stories etc, sums you up nicely! I think Pot Kettle Black actually refers to you. My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses a **** like you. (excuse the profanity I could not think of a more appropriate word, hope you understand how much it suits you). Oh and in your angry button bashing, you have let your grammar slide........what a shame :(
I was always taught that if you use 'rude' language then you have lost the argument as you cannot think of anything positive to say.
You are so obviously better educated than me but,you either cannot read or cannot answer the questions i put.
How has your child been put at risk?
How has he been defamed?
How has he been libeled?
How has he been slandered?
It is a picture of kids with plates on their faces.
So to your point on using work time to post here,are you at work posting on here or are you a 'stay at home mummy?'
"My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses......"
How does YOU working hard get HIM to a level?

What actually do you want from this perceived 'wrong?'
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Just face facts. You are just a moaning minnie with nothing better to do.Its not like your kids,even though you could just about see 1 of them, where 'put at risk' of anything. I really cannot see what all the fuss is about! Typical of today though,you have the mum in the original story moaning about something that she signed up 'not to do',and then did it. Then you have you lot moaning about a single photo that you lot claim puts your child at risk,is defamatory,slanderou s and libelous. Go on then,use your superior brain,hire a lawyer,take all and sundry to court (thats what it is about,'compo' time) and see where you get. How can so many different people complain about their kid in the photo when only 1 face is visible? Thats why so many kids today are the way they are,they have parents like you moaning left right and centre about how their kids are being treated unfairly. I hope the NS does apologise,it will get rid of you lot[/p][/quote]I think its actually more embarrassing that I have a right to have a say here, as its my child, whereas you stalk web pages within your work hours whilst getting paid to do a job you clearly are not doing! (Glad you fulfilled your career as a non entity) to leave snide comments that have no substance. I think if you actually look at the problem with society, its you. You are one big ball of irony and you don't even know what you agree/disagree with, no continuity and no reason to be here. You must be very bored. We all laughed too when we saw your comments elsewhere on other stories etc, sums you up nicely! I think Pot Kettle Black actually refers to you. My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses a **** like you. (excuse the profanity I could not think of a more appropriate word, hope you understand how much it suits you). Oh and in your angry button bashing, you have let your grammar slide........what a shame :([/p][/quote]I was always taught that if you use 'rude' language then you have lost the argument as you cannot think of anything positive to say. You are so obviously better educated than me but,you either cannot read or cannot answer the questions i put. How has your child been put at risk? How has he been defamed? How has he been libeled? How has he been slandered? It is a picture of kids with plates on their faces. So to your point on using work time to post here,are you at work posting on here or are you a 'stay at home mummy?' "My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses......" How does YOU working hard get HIM to a level? What actually do you want from this perceived 'wrong?' lord righteous

10:49am Fri 12 Oct 12

born n breed says...

phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .
Have none of you women got jobs ?
Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .
"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?
You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .
You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak?
Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you.

Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this.


Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.
[quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .[/p][/quote]Have none of you women got jobs ?[/p][/quote]Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .[/p][/quote]"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?[/p][/quote]You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .[/p][/quote]You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar. born n breed

11:09am Fri 12 Oct 12

Deefea says...

lord righteous wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Just face facts.
You are just a moaning minnie with nothing better to do.Its not like your kids,even though you could just about see 1 of them, where 'put at risk' of anything.
I really cannot see what all the fuss is about!
Typical of today though,you have the mum in the original story moaning about something that she signed up 'not to do',and then did it.
Then you have you lot moaning about a single photo that you lot claim puts your child at risk,is defamatory,slanderou



s and libelous.
Go on then,use your superior brain,hire a lawyer,take all and sundry to court (thats what it is about,'compo' time) and see where you get.
How can so many different people complain about their kid in the photo when only 1 face is visible?
Thats why so many kids today are the way they are,they have parents like you moaning left right and centre about how their kids are being treated unfairly.
I hope the NS does apologise,it will get rid of you lot
I think its actually more embarrassing that I have a right to have a say here, as its my child, whereas you stalk web pages within your work hours whilst getting paid to do a job you clearly are not doing! (Glad you fulfilled your career as a non entity) to leave snide comments that have no substance. I think if you actually look at the problem with society, its you. You are one big ball of irony and you don't even know what you agree/disagree with, no continuity and no reason to be here. You must be very bored. We all laughed too when we saw your comments elsewhere on other stories etc, sums you up nicely! I think Pot Kettle Black actually refers to you. My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses a **** like you. (excuse the profanity I could not think of a more appropriate word, hope you understand how much it suits you). Oh and in your angry button bashing, you have let your grammar slide........what a shame :(
I was always taught that if you use 'rude' language then you have lost the argument as you cannot think of anything positive to say.
You are so obviously better educated than me but,you either cannot read or cannot answer the questions i put.
How has your child been put at risk?
How has he been defamed?
How has he been libeled?
How has he been slandered?
It is a picture of kids with plates on their faces.
So to your point on using work time to post here,are you at work posting on here or are you a 'stay at home mummy?'
"My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses......"
How does YOU working hard get HIM to a level?

What actually do you want from this perceived 'wrong?'
I was always taught to call it as I see it. I think that speaks for itself. Yes to all of your questions, not that you are worthy of this answer really. Yes I have a very sturdy career, am very well respected and fear that I pose a threat to you, being female and with a voice. If you cannot see the photo's propaganda and its intention, I would suggest you leave the comments to those that do. I would also suggest that a morally sturdy family with excellent ethics and having worked extremely hard to give our children the best start, would speak for itself, I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough and insignificant enough to waste his life writing blurb on a wall that actually has nothing to do with him. You are very amusing as I do not think you realise how you look. I have a right to be here as I have stated so many times before. Perhaps if your own mother stood for half of my morals, you would be occupying your time much better (just a thought). I am happy to feed your obsession and respond to allow you more text time, as I am fortunate to be able to chose my working hours and dedicate some of my day to you, you to make you go home at night and feel complete. I think you have misjudged many people who normally read NS, we are not all like you. Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech? Your title Lord T-W-A-T is so apt; there is no winner or loser as far as I see it as you have a distinct disadvantage, so would be unfair really. Therefore I am happy to hand you your crown, I think you deserve it more than anyone for your dedication in showing yourself up.
To answer your question, as I would hate to leave you hanging. I need no financial gain at all; but want an apology. I do not want my son affiliated with a story that we do not support, most of all I want an apology for the cleverly depicted photograph NS selected to ensure the school was represented as a prison camp. I do not support photos being used maliciously.

Just a thought, if you don't work for NS, why not give yourself a chance? They obviously support malicious and rude people, you would fit in very well and get paid for your time on here? I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl ;)
.
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Just face facts. You are just a moaning minnie with nothing better to do.Its not like your kids,even though you could just about see 1 of them, where 'put at risk' of anything. I really cannot see what all the fuss is about! Typical of today though,you have the mum in the original story moaning about something that she signed up 'not to do',and then did it. Then you have you lot moaning about a single photo that you lot claim puts your child at risk,is defamatory,slanderou s and libelous. Go on then,use your superior brain,hire a lawyer,take all and sundry to court (thats what it is about,'compo' time) and see where you get. How can so many different people complain about their kid in the photo when only 1 face is visible? Thats why so many kids today are the way they are,they have parents like you moaning left right and centre about how their kids are being treated unfairly. I hope the NS does apologise,it will get rid of you lot[/p][/quote]I think its actually more embarrassing that I have a right to have a say here, as its my child, whereas you stalk web pages within your work hours whilst getting paid to do a job you clearly are not doing! (Glad you fulfilled your career as a non entity) to leave snide comments that have no substance. I think if you actually look at the problem with society, its you. You are one big ball of irony and you don't even know what you agree/disagree with, no continuity and no reason to be here. You must be very bored. We all laughed too when we saw your comments elsewhere on other stories etc, sums you up nicely! I think Pot Kettle Black actually refers to you. My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses a **** like you. (excuse the profanity I could not think of a more appropriate word, hope you understand how much it suits you). Oh and in your angry button bashing, you have let your grammar slide........what a shame :([/p][/quote]I was always taught that if you use 'rude' language then you have lost the argument as you cannot think of anything positive to say. You are so obviously better educated than me but,you either cannot read or cannot answer the questions i put. How has your child been put at risk? How has he been defamed? How has he been libeled? How has he been slandered? It is a picture of kids with plates on their faces. So to your point on using work time to post here,are you at work posting on here or are you a 'stay at home mummy?' "My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses......" How does YOU working hard get HIM to a level? What actually do you want from this perceived 'wrong?'[/p][/quote]I was always taught to call it as I see it. I think that speaks for itself. Yes to all of your questions, not that you are worthy of this answer really. Yes I have a very sturdy career, am very well respected and fear that I pose a threat to you, being female and with a voice. If you cannot see the photo's propaganda and its intention, I would suggest you leave the comments to those that do. I would also suggest that a morally sturdy family with excellent ethics and having worked extremely hard to give our children the best start, would speak for itself, I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough and insignificant enough to waste his life writing blurb on a wall that actually has nothing to do with him. You are very amusing as I do not think you realise how you look. I have a right to be here as I have stated so many times before. Perhaps if your own mother stood for half of my morals, you would be occupying your time much better (just a thought). I am happy to feed your obsession and respond to allow you more text time, as I am fortunate to be able to chose my working hours and dedicate some of my day to you, you to make you go home at night and feel complete. I think you have misjudged many people who normally read NS, we are not all like you. Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech? Your title Lord T-W-A-T is so apt; there is no winner or loser as far as I see it as you have a distinct disadvantage, so would be unfair really. Therefore I am happy to hand you your crown, I think you deserve it more than anyone for your dedication in showing yourself up. To answer your question, as I would hate to leave you hanging. I need no financial gain at all; but want an apology. I do not want my son affiliated with a story that we do not support, most of all I want an apology for the cleverly depicted photograph NS selected to ensure the school was represented as a prison camp. I do not support photos being used maliciously. Just a thought, if you don't work for NS, why not give yourself a chance? They obviously support malicious and rude people, you would fit in very well and get paid for your time on here? I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl ;) . Deefea

11:09am Fri 12 Oct 12

Deefea says...

lord righteous wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Just face facts.
You are just a moaning minnie with nothing better to do.Its not like your kids,even though you could just about see 1 of them, where 'put at risk' of anything.
I really cannot see what all the fuss is about!
Typical of today though,you have the mum in the original story moaning about something that she signed up 'not to do',and then did it.
Then you have you lot moaning about a single photo that you lot claim puts your child at risk,is defamatory,slanderou



s and libelous.
Go on then,use your superior brain,hire a lawyer,take all and sundry to court (thats what it is about,'compo' time) and see where you get.
How can so many different people complain about their kid in the photo when only 1 face is visible?
Thats why so many kids today are the way they are,they have parents like you moaning left right and centre about how their kids are being treated unfairly.
I hope the NS does apologise,it will get rid of you lot
I think its actually more embarrassing that I have a right to have a say here, as its my child, whereas you stalk web pages within your work hours whilst getting paid to do a job you clearly are not doing! (Glad you fulfilled your career as a non entity) to leave snide comments that have no substance. I think if you actually look at the problem with society, its you. You are one big ball of irony and you don't even know what you agree/disagree with, no continuity and no reason to be here. You must be very bored. We all laughed too when we saw your comments elsewhere on other stories etc, sums you up nicely! I think Pot Kettle Black actually refers to you. My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses a **** like you. (excuse the profanity I could not think of a more appropriate word, hope you understand how much it suits you). Oh and in your angry button bashing, you have let your grammar slide........what a shame :(
I was always taught that if you use 'rude' language then you have lost the argument as you cannot think of anything positive to say.
You are so obviously better educated than me but,you either cannot read or cannot answer the questions i put.
How has your child been put at risk?
How has he been defamed?
How has he been libeled?
How has he been slandered?
It is a picture of kids with plates on their faces.
So to your point on using work time to post here,are you at work posting on here or are you a 'stay at home mummy?'
"My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses......"
How does YOU working hard get HIM to a level?

What actually do you want from this perceived 'wrong?'
I was always taught to call it as I see it. I think that speaks for itself. Yes to all of your questions, not that you are worthy of this answer really. Yes I have a very sturdy career, am very well respected and fear that I pose a threat to you, being female and with a voice. If you cannot see the photo's propaganda and its intention, I would suggest you leave the comments to those that do. I would also suggest that a morally sturdy family with excellent ethics and having worked extremely hard to give our children the best start, would speak for itself, I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough and insignificant enough to waste his life writing blurb on a wall that actually has nothing to do with him. You are very amusing as I do not think you realise how you look. I have a right to be here as I have stated so many times before. Perhaps if your own mother stood for half of my morals, you would be occupying your time much better (just a thought). I am happy to feed your obsession and respond to allow you more text time, as I am fortunate to be able to chose my working hours and dedicate some of my day to you, you to make you go home at night and feel complete. I think you have misjudged many people who normally read NS, we are not all like you. Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech? Your title Lord T-W-A-T is so apt; there is no winner or loser as far as I see it as you have a distinct disadvantage, so would be unfair really. Therefore I am happy to hand you your crown, I think you deserve it more than anyone for your dedication in showing yourself up.
To answer your question, as I would hate to leave you hanging. I need no financial gain at all; but want an apology. I do not want my son affiliated with a story that we do not support, most of all I want an apology for the cleverly depicted photograph NS selected to ensure the school was represented as a prison camp. I do not support photos being used maliciously.

Just a thought, if you don't work for NS, why not give yourself a chance? They obviously support malicious and rude people, you would fit in very well and get paid for your time on here? I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl ;)
.
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Just face facts. You are just a moaning minnie with nothing better to do.Its not like your kids,even though you could just about see 1 of them, where 'put at risk' of anything. I really cannot see what all the fuss is about! Typical of today though,you have the mum in the original story moaning about something that she signed up 'not to do',and then did it. Then you have you lot moaning about a single photo that you lot claim puts your child at risk,is defamatory,slanderou s and libelous. Go on then,use your superior brain,hire a lawyer,take all and sundry to court (thats what it is about,'compo' time) and see where you get. How can so many different people complain about their kid in the photo when only 1 face is visible? Thats why so many kids today are the way they are,they have parents like you moaning left right and centre about how their kids are being treated unfairly. I hope the NS does apologise,it will get rid of you lot[/p][/quote]I think its actually more embarrassing that I have a right to have a say here, as its my child, whereas you stalk web pages within your work hours whilst getting paid to do a job you clearly are not doing! (Glad you fulfilled your career as a non entity) to leave snide comments that have no substance. I think if you actually look at the problem with society, its you. You are one big ball of irony and you don't even know what you agree/disagree with, no continuity and no reason to be here. You must be very bored. We all laughed too when we saw your comments elsewhere on other stories etc, sums you up nicely! I think Pot Kettle Black actually refers to you. My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses a **** like you. (excuse the profanity I could not think of a more appropriate word, hope you understand how much it suits you). Oh and in your angry button bashing, you have let your grammar slide........what a shame :([/p][/quote]I was always taught that if you use 'rude' language then you have lost the argument as you cannot think of anything positive to say. You are so obviously better educated than me but,you either cannot read or cannot answer the questions i put. How has your child been put at risk? How has he been defamed? How has he been libeled? How has he been slandered? It is a picture of kids with plates on their faces. So to your point on using work time to post here,are you at work posting on here or are you a 'stay at home mummy?' "My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses......" How does YOU working hard get HIM to a level? What actually do you want from this perceived 'wrong?'[/p][/quote]I was always taught to call it as I see it. I think that speaks for itself. Yes to all of your questions, not that you are worthy of this answer really. Yes I have a very sturdy career, am very well respected and fear that I pose a threat to you, being female and with a voice. If you cannot see the photo's propaganda and its intention, I would suggest you leave the comments to those that do. I would also suggest that a morally sturdy family with excellent ethics and having worked extremely hard to give our children the best start, would speak for itself, I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough and insignificant enough to waste his life writing blurb on a wall that actually has nothing to do with him. You are very amusing as I do not think you realise how you look. I have a right to be here as I have stated so many times before. Perhaps if your own mother stood for half of my morals, you would be occupying your time much better (just a thought). I am happy to feed your obsession and respond to allow you more text time, as I am fortunate to be able to chose my working hours and dedicate some of my day to you, you to make you go home at night and feel complete. I think you have misjudged many people who normally read NS, we are not all like you. Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech? Your title Lord T-W-A-T is so apt; there is no winner or loser as far as I see it as you have a distinct disadvantage, so would be unfair really. Therefore I am happy to hand you your crown, I think you deserve it more than anyone for your dedication in showing yourself up. To answer your question, as I would hate to leave you hanging. I need no financial gain at all; but want an apology. I do not want my son affiliated with a story that we do not support, most of all I want an apology for the cleverly depicted photograph NS selected to ensure the school was represented as a prison camp. I do not support photos being used maliciously. Just a thought, if you don't work for NS, why not give yourself a chance? They obviously support malicious and rude people, you would fit in very well and get paid for your time on here? I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl ;) . Deefea

11:12am Fri 12 Oct 12

phoenixrising1 says...

the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .
Have none of you women got jobs ?
Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .
"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?
You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .
LOL you really think you can tell all that from words on a screen. I really can't be bothered to even start to reply. Maybe you should re read some of your comments and see who statrted with the childish insults. Do I care if my views upsets people...... no!
There you are , I was waiting for a reply last night , whats the matter , no internet at home ? Or did your mum send you to bed and turn the light off !

Anyway , ive no interest in trolling a troll , you see , like all charcters in stories , when the book closes , you disapear !

And I notice you didnt deny any of my observations ! Looks like I was spot on then , as I said , im good at many things . I think you are deliberately trying to upset people , its how you get your kicks , so now thats you exposed . . .

back under your trip trap bridge troll . . .

If you were any good at this you would be sparring with people on more prestigious publications , I dont suppose you would last very long on the Times or the Guardian ! At least we had a reason to even frequent this rubbish rag in the first place , and you are bragging that you are a regular ! Thats about right , its definately your level !
[quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .[/p][/quote]Have none of you women got jobs ?[/p][/quote]Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .[/p][/quote]"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?[/p][/quote]You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .[/p][/quote]LOL you really think you can tell all that from words on a screen. I really can't be bothered to even start to reply. Maybe you should re read some of your comments and see who statrted with the childish insults. Do I care if my views upsets people...... no![/p][/quote]There you are , I was waiting for a reply last night , whats the matter , no internet at home ? Or did your mum send you to bed and turn the light off ! Anyway , ive no interest in trolling a troll , you see , like all charcters in stories , when the book closes , you disapear ! And I notice you didnt deny any of my observations ! Looks like I was spot on then , as I said , im good at many things . I think you are deliberately trying to upset people , its how you get your kicks , so now thats you exposed . . . back under your trip trap bridge troll . . . If you were any good at this you would be sparring with people on more prestigious publications , I dont suppose you would last very long on the Times or the Guardian ! At least we had a reason to even frequent this rubbish rag in the first place , and you are bragging that you are a regular ! Thats about right , its definately your level ! phoenixrising1

11:14am Fri 12 Oct 12

Gypo.Joe says...

FFS the hormones are flowing on this story.

You can tell Simon is back, comments way up there. He lets the action flow.
FFS the hormones are flowing on this story. You can tell Simon is back, comments way up there. He lets the action flow. Gypo.Joe

11:24am Fri 12 Oct 12

Gypo.Joe says...

"Anyway , ive no interest in trolling a troll"


ROFL !!... you idiot phoenixrising1.
"Anyway , ive no interest in trolling a troll" ROFL !!... you idiot phoenixrising1. Gypo.Joe

11:34am Fri 12 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Just face facts.
You are just a moaning minnie with nothing better to do.Its not like your kids,even though you could just about see 1 of them, where 'put at risk' of anything.
I really cannot see what all the fuss is about!
Typical of today though,you have the mum in the original story moaning about something that she signed up 'not to do',and then did it.
Then you have you lot moaning about a single photo that you lot claim puts your child at risk,is defamatory,slanderou




s and libelous.
Go on then,use your superior brain,hire a lawyer,take all and sundry to court (thats what it is about,'compo' time) and see where you get.
How can so many different people complain about their kid in the photo when only 1 face is visible?
Thats why so many kids today are the way they are,they have parents like you moaning left right and centre about how their kids are being treated unfairly.
I hope the NS does apologise,it will get rid of you lot
I think its actually more embarrassing that I have a right to have a say here, as its my child, whereas you stalk web pages within your work hours whilst getting paid to do a job you clearly are not doing! (Glad you fulfilled your career as a non entity) to leave snide comments that have no substance. I think if you actually look at the problem with society, its you. You are one big ball of irony and you don't even know what you agree/disagree with, no continuity and no reason to be here. You must be very bored. We all laughed too when we saw your comments elsewhere on other stories etc, sums you up nicely! I think Pot Kettle Black actually refers to you. My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses a **** like you. (excuse the profanity I could not think of a more appropriate word, hope you understand how much it suits you). Oh and in your angry button bashing, you have let your grammar slide........what a shame :(
I was always taught that if you use 'rude' language then you have lost the argument as you cannot think of anything positive to say.
You are so obviously better educated than me but,you either cannot read or cannot answer the questions i put.
How has your child been put at risk?
How has he been defamed?
How has he been libeled?
How has he been slandered?
It is a picture of kids with plates on their faces.
So to your point on using work time to post here,are you at work posting on here or are you a 'stay at home mummy?'
"My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses......"
How does YOU working hard get HIM to a level?

What actually do you want from this perceived 'wrong?'
I was always taught to call it as I see it. I think that speaks for itself. Yes to all of your questions, not that you are worthy of this answer really. Yes I have a very sturdy career, am very well respected and fear that I pose a threat to you, being female and with a voice. If you cannot see the photo's propaganda and its intention, I would suggest you leave the comments to those that do. I would also suggest that a morally sturdy family with excellent ethics and having worked extremely hard to give our children the best start, would speak for itself, I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough and insignificant enough to waste his life writing blurb on a wall that actually has nothing to do with him. You are very amusing as I do not think you realise how you look. I have a right to be here as I have stated so many times before. Perhaps if your own mother stood for half of my morals, you would be occupying your time much better (just a thought). I am happy to feed your obsession and respond to allow you more text time, as I am fortunate to be able to chose my working hours and dedicate some of my day to you, you to make you go home at night and feel complete. I think you have misjudged many people who normally read NS, we are not all like you. Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech? Your title Lord T-W-A-T is so apt; there is no winner or loser as far as I see it as you have a distinct disadvantage, so would be unfair really. Therefore I am happy to hand you your crown, I think you deserve it more than anyone for your dedication in showing yourself up.
To answer your question, as I would hate to leave you hanging. I need no financial gain at all; but want an apology. I do not want my son affiliated with a story that we do not support, most of all I want an apology for the cleverly depicted photograph NS selected to ensure the school was represented as a prison camp. I do not support photos being used maliciously.

Just a thought, if you don't work for NS, why not give yourself a chance? They obviously support malicious and rude people, you would fit in very well and get paid for your time on here? I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl ;)
.
"am very well respected"
By who,seems a little desperate to me?

"If you cannot see the photo's propaganda"
Please enlighten us.

"I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough"
No you can't.

"I have a right to be here"
So does everyone else.

"I do not think you realise how you look"
Touche.

"Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech?"
And you can?

"but want an apology"
For what?

"we are not all like you"
Or like you ,thankfully.

"I do not support photos being used maliciously"
How is it malicious?

"I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl"
I bet you surprise a lot of people.

A childs (part) face in a photo and WW3 breaks out,have you not got anything better to do?
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Just face facts. You are just a moaning minnie with nothing better to do.Its not like your kids,even though you could just about see 1 of them, where 'put at risk' of anything. I really cannot see what all the fuss is about! Typical of today though,you have the mum in the original story moaning about something that she signed up 'not to do',and then did it. Then you have you lot moaning about a single photo that you lot claim puts your child at risk,is defamatory,slanderou s and libelous. Go on then,use your superior brain,hire a lawyer,take all and sundry to court (thats what it is about,'compo' time) and see where you get. How can so many different people complain about their kid in the photo when only 1 face is visible? Thats why so many kids today are the way they are,they have parents like you moaning left right and centre about how their kids are being treated unfairly. I hope the NS does apologise,it will get rid of you lot[/p][/quote]I think its actually more embarrassing that I have a right to have a say here, as its my child, whereas you stalk web pages within your work hours whilst getting paid to do a job you clearly are not doing! (Glad you fulfilled your career as a non entity) to leave snide comments that have no substance. I think if you actually look at the problem with society, its you. You are one big ball of irony and you don't even know what you agree/disagree with, no continuity and no reason to be here. You must be very bored. We all laughed too when we saw your comments elsewhere on other stories etc, sums you up nicely! I think Pot Kettle Black actually refers to you. My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses a **** like you. (excuse the profanity I could not think of a more appropriate word, hope you understand how much it suits you). Oh and in your angry button bashing, you have let your grammar slide........what a shame :([/p][/quote]I was always taught that if you use 'rude' language then you have lost the argument as you cannot think of anything positive to say. You are so obviously better educated than me but,you either cannot read or cannot answer the questions i put. How has your child been put at risk? How has he been defamed? How has he been libeled? How has he been slandered? It is a picture of kids with plates on their faces. So to your point on using work time to post here,are you at work posting on here or are you a 'stay at home mummy?' "My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses......" How does YOU working hard get HIM to a level? What actually do you want from this perceived 'wrong?'[/p][/quote]I was always taught to call it as I see it. I think that speaks for itself. Yes to all of your questions, not that you are worthy of this answer really. Yes I have a very sturdy career, am very well respected and fear that I pose a threat to you, being female and with a voice. If you cannot see the photo's propaganda and its intention, I would suggest you leave the comments to those that do. I would also suggest that a morally sturdy family with excellent ethics and having worked extremely hard to give our children the best start, would speak for itself, I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough and insignificant enough to waste his life writing blurb on a wall that actually has nothing to do with him. You are very amusing as I do not think you realise how you look. I have a right to be here as I have stated so many times before. Perhaps if your own mother stood for half of my morals, you would be occupying your time much better (just a thought). I am happy to feed your obsession and respond to allow you more text time, as I am fortunate to be able to chose my working hours and dedicate some of my day to you, you to make you go home at night and feel complete. I think you have misjudged many people who normally read NS, we are not all like you. Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech? Your title Lord T-W-A-T is so apt; there is no winner or loser as far as I see it as you have a distinct disadvantage, so would be unfair really. Therefore I am happy to hand you your crown, I think you deserve it more than anyone for your dedication in showing yourself up. To answer your question, as I would hate to leave you hanging. I need no financial gain at all; but want an apology. I do not want my son affiliated with a story that we do not support, most of all I want an apology for the cleverly depicted photograph NS selected to ensure the school was represented as a prison camp. I do not support photos being used maliciously. Just a thought, if you don't work for NS, why not give yourself a chance? They obviously support malicious and rude people, you would fit in very well and get paid for your time on here? I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl ;) .[/p][/quote]"am very well respected" By who,seems a little desperate to me? "If you cannot see the photo's propaganda" Please enlighten us. "I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough" No you can't. "I have a right to be here" So does everyone else. "I do not think you realise how you look" Touche. "Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech?" And you can? "but want an apology" For what? "we are not all like you" Or like you ,thankfully. "I do not support photos being used maliciously" How is it malicious? "I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl" I bet you surprise a lot of people. A childs (part) face in a photo and WW3 breaks out,have you not got anything better to do? lord righteous

11:37am Fri 12 Oct 12

phoenixrising1 says...

born n breed wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .
Have none of you women got jobs ?
Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .
"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?
You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .
You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.
So the wall has a friend ! Excellent , he needs some help , I have every reason to be on here , the article is about my childs school . Whats your excuse , apart from to save your drowning friend because hes in way over his depth ?

Might I suggest you go to the top , read all the comments through , come back to me when youve caught up with the rest of us ! And you are certainly not in any position to lecture me on grammar , check your own !

I think weve all figured out by now that there are a few trolls on here , probably affiliated with the newshopper , trying to drag people into arguments to distract from the original article , which has now been shown to be factually incorrect and morally wrong .

We wont bite , if you think that by making insulting and inflammatory remarks you are going to draw us into some sort of slanging match , thereby making ourselves , and the school , look bad , you are wrong .

The overwhelming message from all the comments is that the school is good , the newspaper is wrong , so I think we are all pretty much done with this . Thanks for the free advertising !

Good day !
[quote][p][bold]born n breed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .[/p][/quote]Have none of you women got jobs ?[/p][/quote]Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .[/p][/quote]"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?[/p][/quote]You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .[/p][/quote]You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.[/p][/quote]So the wall has a friend ! Excellent , he needs some help , I have every reason to be on here , the article is about my childs school . Whats your excuse , apart from to save your drowning friend because hes in way over his depth ? Might I suggest you go to the top , read all the comments through , come back to me when youve caught up with the rest of us ! And you are certainly not in any position to lecture me on grammar , check your own ! I think weve all figured out by now that there are a few trolls on here , probably affiliated with the newshopper , trying to drag people into arguments to distract from the original article , which has now been shown to be factually incorrect and morally wrong . We wont bite , if you think that by making insulting and inflammatory remarks you are going to draw us into some sort of slanging match , thereby making ourselves , and the school , look bad , you are wrong . The overwhelming message from all the comments is that the school is good , the newspaper is wrong , so I think we are all pretty much done with this . Thanks for the free advertising ! Good day ! phoenixrising1

11:44am Fri 12 Oct 12

phoenixrising1 says...

Gypo.Joe wrote:
"Anyway , ive no interest in trolling a troll" ROFL !!... you idiot phoenixrising1.
Name calling ?

Can you not come up with something a bit better ?
[quote][p][bold]Gypo.Joe[/bold] wrote: "Anyway , ive no interest in trolling a troll" ROFL !!... you idiot phoenixrising1.[/p][/quote]Name calling ? Can you not come up with something a bit better ? phoenixrising1

11:55am Fri 12 Oct 12

Gypo.Joe says...

phoenixrising1 wrote:
Gypo.Joe wrote:
"Anyway , ive no interest in trolling a troll" ROFL !!... you idiot phoenixrising1.
Name calling ?

Can you not come up with something a bit better ?
OK then would you like something a little stronger ?
[quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gypo.Joe[/bold] wrote: "Anyway , ive no interest in trolling a troll" ROFL !!... you idiot phoenixrising1.[/p][/quote]Name calling ? Can you not come up with something a bit better ?[/p][/quote]OK then would you like something a little stronger ? Gypo.Joe

11:59am Fri 12 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

phoenixrising1 wrote:
born n breed wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .
Have none of you women got jobs ?
Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .
"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?
You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .
You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.
So the wall has a friend ! Excellent , he needs some help , I have every reason to be on here , the article is about my childs school . Whats your excuse , apart from to save your drowning friend because hes in way over his depth ?

Might I suggest you go to the top , read all the comments through , come back to me when youve caught up with the rest of us ! And you are certainly not in any position to lecture me on grammar , check your own !

I think weve all figured out by now that there are a few trolls on here , probably affiliated with the newshopper , trying to drag people into arguments to distract from the original article , which has now been shown to be factually incorrect and morally wrong .

We wont bite , if you think that by making insulting and inflammatory remarks you are going to draw us into some sort of slanging match , thereby making ourselves , and the school , look bad , you are wrong .

The overwhelming message from all the comments is that the school is good , the newspaper is wrong , so I think we are all pretty much done with this . Thanks for the free advertising !

Good day !
Where is it factually incorrect?
How and why is it morally wrong?
[quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]born n breed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .[/p][/quote]Have none of you women got jobs ?[/p][/quote]Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .[/p][/quote]"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?[/p][/quote]You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .[/p][/quote]You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.[/p][/quote]So the wall has a friend ! Excellent , he needs some help , I have every reason to be on here , the article is about my childs school . Whats your excuse , apart from to save your drowning friend because hes in way over his depth ? Might I suggest you go to the top , read all the comments through , come back to me when youve caught up with the rest of us ! And you are certainly not in any position to lecture me on grammar , check your own ! I think weve all figured out by now that there are a few trolls on here , probably affiliated with the newshopper , trying to drag people into arguments to distract from the original article , which has now been shown to be factually incorrect and morally wrong . We wont bite , if you think that by making insulting and inflammatory remarks you are going to draw us into some sort of slanging match , thereby making ourselves , and the school , look bad , you are wrong . The overwhelming message from all the comments is that the school is good , the newspaper is wrong , so I think we are all pretty much done with this . Thanks for the free advertising ! Good day ![/p][/quote]Where is it factually incorrect? How and why is it morally wrong? lord righteous

12:05pm Fri 12 Oct 12

born n breed says...

phoenixrising1 wrote:
born n breed wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .
Have none of you women got jobs ?
Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .
"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?
You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .
You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.
So the wall has a friend ! Excellent , he needs some help , I have every reason to be on here , the article is about my childs school . Whats your excuse , apart from to save your drowning friend because hes in way over his depth ? Might I suggest you go to the top , read all the comments through , come back to me when youve caught up with the rest of us ! And you are certainly not in any position to lecture me on grammar , check your own ! I think weve all figured out by now that there are a few trolls on here , probably affiliated with the newshopper , trying to drag people into arguments to distract from the original article , which has now been shown to be factually incorrect and morally wrong . We wont bite , if you think that by making insulting and inflammatory remarks you are going to draw us into some sort of slanging match , thereby making ourselves , and the school , look bad , you are wrong . The overwhelming message from all the comments is that the school is good , the newspaper is wrong , so I think we are all pretty much done with this . Thanks for the free advertising ! Good day !
Don't know the wall and I don't always agree with what they write. But I know they can stand up for them self. I don't claim to be some well educated person unlike you.

I don't like nasty people like you. You're a bully and stuck up. You think you are better than other people. Tell me this if you were having 7 bells kick out of you would what some one like me or the wall to help you.

Your back hole smells the same as everyone else, so stop thinking you are better than others.


I'm sure the school is very good but the behaviour of some of the parents leaves a lot to be desired.
[quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]born n breed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .[/p][/quote]Have none of you women got jobs ?[/p][/quote]Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .[/p][/quote]"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?[/p][/quote]You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .[/p][/quote]You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.[/p][/quote]So the wall has a friend ! Excellent , he needs some help , I have every reason to be on here , the article is about my childs school . Whats your excuse , apart from to save your drowning friend because hes in way over his depth ? Might I suggest you go to the top , read all the comments through , come back to me when youve caught up with the rest of us ! And you are certainly not in any position to lecture me on grammar , check your own ! I think weve all figured out by now that there are a few trolls on here , probably affiliated with the newshopper , trying to drag people into arguments to distract from the original article , which has now been shown to be factually incorrect and morally wrong . We wont bite , if you think that by making insulting and inflammatory remarks you are going to draw us into some sort of slanging match , thereby making ourselves , and the school , look bad , you are wrong . The overwhelming message from all the comments is that the school is good , the newspaper is wrong , so I think we are all pretty much done with this . Thanks for the free advertising ! Good day ![/p][/quote]Don't know the wall and I don't always agree with what they write. But I know they can stand up for them self. I don't claim to be some well educated person unlike you. I don't like nasty people like you. You're a bully and stuck up. You think you are better than other people. Tell me this if you were having 7 bells kick out of you would what some one like me or the wall to help you. Your back hole smells the same as everyone else, so stop thinking you are better than others. I'm sure the school is very good but the behaviour of some of the parents leaves a lot to be desired. born n breed

12:13pm Fri 12 Oct 12

phoenixrising1 says...

lord righteous wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
born n breed wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .
Have none of you women got jobs ?
Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .
"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?
You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .
You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.
So the wall has a friend ! Excellent , he needs some help , I have every reason to be on here , the article is about my childs school . Whats your excuse , apart from to save your drowning friend because hes in way over his depth ? Might I suggest you go to the top , read all the comments through , come back to me when youve caught up with the rest of us ! And you are certainly not in any position to lecture me on grammar , check your own ! I think weve all figured out by now that there are a few trolls on here , probably affiliated with the newshopper , trying to drag people into arguments to distract from the original article , which has now been shown to be factually incorrect and morally wrong . We wont bite , if you think that by making insulting and inflammatory remarks you are going to draw us into some sort of slanging match , thereby making ourselves , and the school , look bad , you are wrong . The overwhelming message from all the comments is that the school is good , the newspaper is wrong , so I think we are all pretty much done with this . Thanks for the free advertising ! Good day !
Where is it factually incorrect? How and why is it morally wrong?
Its factually incorrect because it reports that GFS is beieved to be the only school in the Borough with a no mobile phone policy . It is , in fact , the third school locally to implement this policy , the other two are currently the highest performing schools in the area at GCSE ( GFS is new and therefore doesnt have any data to compare against ) . I did point this out earlier .

I think you could argue that its morally wrong because pictures have been used out of context for their original purpose , and with the sole intention of making the school , and therefore the students , look bad , you could even say , discriminatory .

However , Ive pretty much said everything that I want to on this subject , and have not come across anyone yet that can refute or negate my points , so I probably wont be adding anything further .

I have read some of your other posts , which have been quite effectively challenging by other writers .Perhaps thats why you are trying your luck with me ?
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]born n breed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .[/p][/quote]Have none of you women got jobs ?[/p][/quote]Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .[/p][/quote]"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?[/p][/quote]You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .[/p][/quote]You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.[/p][/quote]So the wall has a friend ! Excellent , he needs some help , I have every reason to be on here , the article is about my childs school . Whats your excuse , apart from to save your drowning friend because hes in way over his depth ? Might I suggest you go to the top , read all the comments through , come back to me when youve caught up with the rest of us ! And you are certainly not in any position to lecture me on grammar , check your own ! I think weve all figured out by now that there are a few trolls on here , probably affiliated with the newshopper , trying to drag people into arguments to distract from the original article , which has now been shown to be factually incorrect and morally wrong . We wont bite , if you think that by making insulting and inflammatory remarks you are going to draw us into some sort of slanging match , thereby making ourselves , and the school , look bad , you are wrong . The overwhelming message from all the comments is that the school is good , the newspaper is wrong , so I think we are all pretty much done with this . Thanks for the free advertising ! Good day ![/p][/quote]Where is it factually incorrect? How and why is it morally wrong?[/p][/quote]Its factually incorrect because it reports that GFS is beieved to be the only school in the Borough with a no mobile phone policy . It is , in fact , the third school locally to implement this policy , the other two are currently the highest performing schools in the area at GCSE ( GFS is new and therefore doesnt have any data to compare against ) . I did point this out earlier . I think you could argue that its morally wrong because pictures have been used out of context for their original purpose , and with the sole intention of making the school , and therefore the students , look bad , you could even say , discriminatory . However , Ive pretty much said everything that I want to on this subject , and have not come across anyone yet that can refute or negate my points , so I probably wont be adding anything further . I have read some of your other posts , which have been quite effectively challenging by other writers .Perhaps thats why you are trying your luck with me ? phoenixrising1

12:23pm Fri 12 Oct 12

Gypo.Joe says...

Elvis has left the building !!


phoenixrising1, oh sorry you're still here.
Elvis has left the building !! phoenixrising1, oh sorry you're still here. Gypo.Joe

12:25pm Fri 12 Oct 12

phoenixrising1 says...

born n breed wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
born n breed wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .
Have none of you women got jobs ?
Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .
"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?
You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .
You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.
So the wall has a friend ! Excellent , he needs some help , I have every reason to be on here , the article is about my childs school . Whats your excuse , apart from to save your drowning friend because hes in way over his depth ? Might I suggest you go to the top , read all the comments through , come back to me when youve caught up with the rest of us ! And you are certainly not in any position to lecture me on grammar , check your own ! I think weve all figured out by now that there are a few trolls on here , probably affiliated with the newshopper , trying to drag people into arguments to distract from the original article , which has now been shown to be factually incorrect and morally wrong . We wont bite , if you think that by making insulting and inflammatory remarks you are going to draw us into some sort of slanging match , thereby making ourselves , and the school , look bad , you are wrong . The overwhelming message from all the comments is that the school is good , the newspaper is wrong , so I think we are all pretty much done with this . Thanks for the free advertising ! Good day !
Don't know the wall and I don't always agree with what they write. But I know they can stand up for them self. I don't claim to be some well educated person unlike you. I don't like nasty people like you. You're a bully and stuck up. You think you are better than other people. Tell me this if you were having 7 bells kick out of you would what some one like me or the wall to help you. Your back hole smells the same as everyone else, so stop thinking you are better than others. I'm sure the school is very good but the behaviour of some of the parents leaves a lot to be desired.
I cant ever imagine a scenario whereby I would require assistance from either yourself or the wall to be honest .

Although its interesting that you would make reference to a violent assault , have you had that sort of experience before ? Perhaps youve been attacked in some way , much the same as our children have been ?

The school is very good by the way , thanks for pointing that out , as its the reason we are actually all posting on here , because we want to defend our school from an unfair attack .

I wonder if you have actually read all of the posts , and can see who is challenging the article as incorrect , and who is challenging the challengers , to draw attention away from what is , quite an unpleasent article .

You see the wall , the person who you have jumped in to defend , is trying to prevent us from defending our children . Do you want to be part of that ? Do you hate women and children too ? Is your name born and breed because you were born , breed children , but dont actually raise any of them , and thats why you are struggling to see our point of view ?
[quote][p][bold]born n breed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]born n breed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .[/p][/quote]Have none of you women got jobs ?[/p][/quote]Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .[/p][/quote]"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?[/p][/quote]You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .[/p][/quote]You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.[/p][/quote]So the wall has a friend ! Excellent , he needs some help , I have every reason to be on here , the article is about my childs school . Whats your excuse , apart from to save your drowning friend because hes in way over his depth ? Might I suggest you go to the top , read all the comments through , come back to me when youve caught up with the rest of us ! And you are certainly not in any position to lecture me on grammar , check your own ! I think weve all figured out by now that there are a few trolls on here , probably affiliated with the newshopper , trying to drag people into arguments to distract from the original article , which has now been shown to be factually incorrect and morally wrong . We wont bite , if you think that by making insulting and inflammatory remarks you are going to draw us into some sort of slanging match , thereby making ourselves , and the school , look bad , you are wrong . The overwhelming message from all the comments is that the school is good , the newspaper is wrong , so I think we are all pretty much done with this . Thanks for the free advertising ! Good day ![/p][/quote]Don't know the wall and I don't always agree with what they write. But I know they can stand up for them self. I don't claim to be some well educated person unlike you. I don't like nasty people like you. You're a bully and stuck up. You think you are better than other people. Tell me this if you were having 7 bells kick out of you would what some one like me or the wall to help you. Your back hole smells the same as everyone else, so stop thinking you are better than others. I'm sure the school is very good but the behaviour of some of the parents leaves a lot to be desired.[/p][/quote]I cant ever imagine a scenario whereby I would require assistance from either yourself or the wall to be honest . Although its interesting that you would make reference to a violent assault , have you had that sort of experience before ? Perhaps youve been attacked in some way , much the same as our children have been ? The school is very good by the way , thanks for pointing that out , as its the reason we are actually all posting on here , because we want to defend our school from an unfair attack . I wonder if you have actually read all of the posts , and can see who is challenging the article as incorrect , and who is challenging the challengers , to draw attention away from what is , quite an unpleasent article . You see the wall , the person who you have jumped in to defend , is trying to prevent us from defending our children . Do you want to be part of that ? Do you hate women and children too ? Is your name born and breed because you were born , breed children , but dont actually raise any of them , and thats why you are struggling to see our point of view ? phoenixrising1

12:26pm Fri 12 Oct 12

the wall says...

If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced.
That's why people with no sense of humour have an increased sense of self-importance.


I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.
If you lose one sense, your other senses are enhanced. That's why people with no sense of humour have an increased sense of self-importance. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you. the wall

12:28pm Fri 12 Oct 12

phoenixrising1 says...

Gypo.Joe wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
Gypo.Joe wrote: "Anyway , ive no interest in trolling a troll" ROFL !!... you idiot phoenixrising1.
Name calling ? Can you not come up with something a bit better ?
OK then would you like something a little stronger ?
I was hoping for something mildly challenging , I mean , Im not expecting too much , it is the newshopper after all , but did you have any pertinent points to raise regarding the debate ?

Take your time . . .
[quote][p][bold]Gypo.Joe[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Gypo.Joe[/bold] wrote: "Anyway , ive no interest in trolling a troll" ROFL !!... you idiot phoenixrising1.[/p][/quote]Name calling ? Can you not come up with something a bit better ?[/p][/quote]OK then would you like something a little stronger ?[/p][/quote]I was hoping for something mildly challenging , I mean , Im not expecting too much , it is the newshopper after all , but did you have any pertinent points to raise regarding the debate ? Take your time . . . phoenixrising1

12:30pm Fri 12 Oct 12

phoenixrising1 says...

Gypo.Joe wrote:
Elvis has left the building !! phoenixrising1, oh sorry you're still here.
Yes , well I was waiting for your reply , perhaps I shouldnt have bothered as you dont seem to have much to add .

Did you want me to go ?

Is that because I have embarrassed you ever so slightly ?
[quote][p][bold]Gypo.Joe[/bold] wrote: Elvis has left the building !! phoenixrising1, oh sorry you're still here.[/p][/quote]Yes , well I was waiting for your reply , perhaps I shouldnt have bothered as you dont seem to have much to add . Did you want me to go ? Is that because I have embarrassed you ever so slightly ? phoenixrising1

12:42pm Fri 12 Oct 12

born n breed says...

phoenixrising1 wrote:
born n breed wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
born n breed wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .
Have none of you women got jobs ?
Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .
"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?
You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .
You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.
So the wall has a friend ! Excellent , he needs some help , I have every reason to be on here , the article is about my childs school . Whats your excuse , apart from to save your drowning friend because hes in way over his depth ? Might I suggest you go to the top , read all the comments through , come back to me when youve caught up with the rest of us ! And you are certainly not in any position to lecture me on grammar , check your own ! I think weve all figured out by now that there are a few trolls on here , probably affiliated with the newshopper , trying to drag people into arguments to distract from the original article , which has now been shown to be factually incorrect and morally wrong . We wont bite , if you think that by making insulting and inflammatory remarks you are going to draw us into some sort of slanging match , thereby making ourselves , and the school , look bad , you are wrong . The overwhelming message from all the comments is that the school is good , the newspaper is wrong , so I think we are all pretty much done with this . Thanks for the free advertising ! Good day !
Don't know the wall and I don't always agree with what they write. But I know they can stand up for them self. I don't claim to be some well educated person unlike you. I don't like nasty people like you. You're a bully and stuck up. You think you are better than other people. Tell me this if you were having 7 bells kick out of you would what some one like me or the wall to help you. Your back hole smells the same as everyone else, so stop thinking you are better than others. I'm sure the school is very good but the behaviour of some of the parents leaves a lot to be desired.
I cant ever imagine a scenario whereby I would require assistance from either yourself or the wall to be honest . Although its interesting that you would make reference to a violent assault , have you had that sort of experience before ? Perhaps youve been attacked in some way , much the same as our children have been ? The school is very good by the way , thanks for pointing that out , as its the reason we are actually all posting on here , because we want to defend our school from an unfair attack . I wonder if you have actually read all of the posts , and can see who is challenging the article as incorrect , and who is challenging the challengers , to draw attention away from what is , quite an unpleasent article . You see the wall , the person who you have jumped in to defend , is trying to prevent us from defending our children . Do you want to be part of that ? Do you hate women and children too ? Is your name born and breed because you were born , breed children , but dont actually raise any of them , and thats why you are struggling to see our point of view ?
Do bore off!
This is getting very boring with you churning out the same old sterotypes.
You jump on anything and twist it, you are starting to sound like a bleating foal.

I do feel you have been caught hook, line and sinker. Well done for playing the game but it's you that has been played.
[quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]born n breed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]born n breed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .[/p][/quote]Have none of you women got jobs ?[/p][/quote]Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .[/p][/quote]"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?[/p][/quote]You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .[/p][/quote]You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.[/p][/quote]So the wall has a friend ! Excellent , he needs some help , I have every reason to be on here , the article is about my childs school . Whats your excuse , apart from to save your drowning friend because hes in way over his depth ? Might I suggest you go to the top , read all the comments through , come back to me when youve caught up with the rest of us ! And you are certainly not in any position to lecture me on grammar , check your own ! I think weve all figured out by now that there are a few trolls on here , probably affiliated with the newshopper , trying to drag people into arguments to distract from the original article , which has now been shown to be factually incorrect and morally wrong . We wont bite , if you think that by making insulting and inflammatory remarks you are going to draw us into some sort of slanging match , thereby making ourselves , and the school , look bad , you are wrong . The overwhelming message from all the comments is that the school is good , the newspaper is wrong , so I think we are all pretty much done with this . Thanks for the free advertising ! Good day ![/p][/quote]Don't know the wall and I don't always agree with what they write. But I know they can stand up for them self. I don't claim to be some well educated person unlike you. I don't like nasty people like you. You're a bully and stuck up. You think you are better than other people. Tell me this if you were having 7 bells kick out of you would what some one like me or the wall to help you. Your back hole smells the same as everyone else, so stop thinking you are better than others. I'm sure the school is very good but the behaviour of some of the parents leaves a lot to be desired.[/p][/quote]I cant ever imagine a scenario whereby I would require assistance from either yourself or the wall to be honest . Although its interesting that you would make reference to a violent assault , have you had that sort of experience before ? Perhaps youve been attacked in some way , much the same as our children have been ? The school is very good by the way , thanks for pointing that out , as its the reason we are actually all posting on here , because we want to defend our school from an unfair attack . I wonder if you have actually read all of the posts , and can see who is challenging the article as incorrect , and who is challenging the challengers , to draw attention away from what is , quite an unpleasent article . You see the wall , the person who you have jumped in to defend , is trying to prevent us from defending our children . Do you want to be part of that ? Do you hate women and children too ? Is your name born and breed because you were born , breed children , but dont actually raise any of them , and thats why you are struggling to see our point of view ?[/p][/quote]Do bore off! This is getting very boring with you churning out the same old sterotypes. You jump on anything and twist it, you are starting to sound like a bleating foal. I do feel you have been caught hook, line and sinker. Well done for playing the game but it's you that has been played. born n breed

12:49pm Fri 12 Oct 12

phoenixrising1 says...

born n breed wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
born n breed wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
born n breed wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .
Have none of you women got jobs ?
Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .
"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?
You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .
You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.
So the wall has a friend ! Excellent , he needs some help , I have every reason to be on here , the article is about my childs school . Whats your excuse , apart from to save your drowning friend because hes in way over his depth ? Might I suggest you go to the top , read all the comments through , come back to me when youve caught up with the rest of us ! And you are certainly not in any position to lecture me on grammar , check your own ! I think weve all figured out by now that there are a few trolls on here , probably affiliated with the newshopper , trying to drag people into arguments to distract from the original article , which has now been shown to be factually incorrect and morally wrong . We wont bite , if you think that by making insulting and inflammatory remarks you are going to draw us into some sort of slanging match , thereby making ourselves , and the school , look bad , you are wrong . The overwhelming message from all the comments is that the school is good , the newspaper is wrong , so I think we are all pretty much done with this . Thanks for the free advertising ! Good day !
Don't know the wall and I don't always agree with what they write. But I know they can stand up for them self. I don't claim to be some well educated person unlike you. I don't like nasty people like you. You're a bully and stuck up. You think you are better than other people. Tell me this if you were having 7 bells kick out of you would what some one like me or the wall to help you. Your back hole smells the same as everyone else, so stop thinking you are better than others. I'm sure the school is very good but the behaviour of some of the parents leaves a lot to be desired.
I cant ever imagine a scenario whereby I would require assistance from either yourself or the wall to be honest . Although its interesting that you would make reference to a violent assault , have you had that sort of experience before ? Perhaps youve been attacked in some way , much the same as our children have been ? The school is very good by the way , thanks for pointing that out , as its the reason we are actually all posting on here , because we want to defend our school from an unfair attack . I wonder if you have actually read all of the posts , and can see who is challenging the article as incorrect , and who is challenging the challengers , to draw attention away from what is , quite an unpleasent article . You see the wall , the person who you have jumped in to defend , is trying to prevent us from defending our children . Do you want to be part of that ? Do you hate women and children too ? Is your name born and breed because you were born , breed children , but dont actually raise any of them , and thats why you are struggling to see our point of view ?
Do bore off! This is getting very boring with you churning out the same old sterotypes. You jump on anything and twist it, you are starting to sound like a bleating foal. I do feel you have been caught hook, line and sinker. Well done for playing the game but it's you that has been played.
I dont think so , I think the fact that you are not able to answer any of my points shows that it is you , who has " been played " as you put it .

Caught hook line and sinker ? How so ? Please do explain .

Because you cant respond , you are trying to direct it back at me . Thats not sufficient to win the argument im afraid . Feel free to have another go .

And as for me jumping on things and twisting them , its called being attentive , and I would suggest that it is you , who is getting twisted up , by me .
[quote][p][bold]born n breed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]born n breed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]born n breed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .[/p][/quote]Have none of you women got jobs ?[/p][/quote]Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .[/p][/quote]"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?[/p][/quote]You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .[/p][/quote]You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.[/p][/quote]So the wall has a friend ! Excellent , he needs some help , I have every reason to be on here , the article is about my childs school . Whats your excuse , apart from to save your drowning friend because hes in way over his depth ? Might I suggest you go to the top , read all the comments through , come back to me when youve caught up with the rest of us ! And you are certainly not in any position to lecture me on grammar , check your own ! I think weve all figured out by now that there are a few trolls on here , probably affiliated with the newshopper , trying to drag people into arguments to distract from the original article , which has now been shown to be factually incorrect and morally wrong . We wont bite , if you think that by making insulting and inflammatory remarks you are going to draw us into some sort of slanging match , thereby making ourselves , and the school , look bad , you are wrong . The overwhelming message from all the comments is that the school is good , the newspaper is wrong , so I think we are all pretty much done with this . Thanks for the free advertising ! Good day ![/p][/quote]Don't know the wall and I don't always agree with what they write. But I know they can stand up for them self. I don't claim to be some well educated person unlike you. I don't like nasty people like you. You're a bully and stuck up. You think you are better than other people. Tell me this if you were having 7 bells kick out of you would what some one like me or the wall to help you. Your back hole smells the same as everyone else, so stop thinking you are better than others. I'm sure the school is very good but the behaviour of some of the parents leaves a lot to be desired.[/p][/quote]I cant ever imagine a scenario whereby I would require assistance from either yourself or the wall to be honest . Although its interesting that you would make reference to a violent assault , have you had that sort of experience before ? Perhaps youve been attacked in some way , much the same as our children have been ? The school is very good by the way , thanks for pointing that out , as its the reason we are actually all posting on here , because we want to defend our school from an unfair attack . I wonder if you have actually read all of the posts , and can see who is challenging the article as incorrect , and who is challenging the challengers , to draw attention away from what is , quite an unpleasent article . You see the wall , the person who you have jumped in to defend , is trying to prevent us from defending our children . Do you want to be part of that ? Do you hate women and children too ? Is your name born and breed because you were born , breed children , but dont actually raise any of them , and thats why you are struggling to see our point of view ?[/p][/quote]Do bore off! This is getting very boring with you churning out the same old sterotypes. You jump on anything and twist it, you are starting to sound like a bleating foal. I do feel you have been caught hook, line and sinker. Well done for playing the game but it's you that has been played.[/p][/quote]I dont think so , I think the fact that you are not able to answer any of my points shows that it is you , who has " been played " as you put it . Caught hook line and sinker ? How so ? Please do explain . Because you cant respond , you are trying to direct it back at me . Thats not sufficient to win the argument im afraid . Feel free to have another go . And as for me jumping on things and twisting them , its called being attentive , and I would suggest that it is you , who is getting twisted up , by me . phoenixrising1

1:21pm Fri 12 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

phoenixrising1 wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
born n breed wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .
Have none of you women got jobs ?
Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .
"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?
You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .
You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.
So the wall has a friend ! Excellent , he needs some help , I have every reason to be on here , the article is about my childs school . Whats your excuse , apart from to save your drowning friend because hes in way over his depth ? Might I suggest you go to the top , read all the comments through , come back to me when youve caught up with the rest of us ! And you are certainly not in any position to lecture me on grammar , check your own ! I think weve all figured out by now that there are a few trolls on here , probably affiliated with the newshopper , trying to drag people into arguments to distract from the original article , which has now been shown to be factually incorrect and morally wrong . We wont bite , if you think that by making insulting and inflammatory remarks you are going to draw us into some sort of slanging match , thereby making ourselves , and the school , look bad , you are wrong . The overwhelming message from all the comments is that the school is good , the newspaper is wrong , so I think we are all pretty much done with this . Thanks for the free advertising ! Good day !
Where is it factually incorrect? How and why is it morally wrong?
Its factually incorrect because it reports that GFS is beieved to be the only school in the Borough with a no mobile phone policy . It is , in fact , the third school locally to implement this policy , the other two are currently the highest performing schools in the area at GCSE ( GFS is new and therefore doesnt have any data to compare against ) . I did point this out earlier .

I think you could argue that its morally wrong because pictures have been used out of context for their original purpose , and with the sole intention of making the school , and therefore the students , look bad , you could even say , discriminatory .

However , Ive pretty much said everything that I want to on this subject , and have not come across anyone yet that can refute or negate my points , so I probably wont be adding anything further .

I have read some of your other posts , which have been quite effectively challenging by other writers .Perhaps thats why you are trying your luck with me ?
"Its factually incorrect because it reports that GFS is beieved to be the only school in the Borough....."

Well that changes everything,what a huge and damming inaccuracy!

!I think you could argue that its morally wrong because pictures have been used out of context for their original purpose ,

Well i don't.Its a photo of pupils in an item about a school.What photo would you like,farm animals,cars or anything not associated with a school.

"and with the sole intention of making the school , and therefore the students , look bad , you could even say discriminatory"

Best nonsense you have written!
You honestly think that the NS has deliberately set out to make the school and its pupils look bad,for what reason do you base this ridiculous statement on?
And discriminatory,have you read the definition?You are truly clutching at straws now and getting more and more absurd with every rant.

"and have not come across anyone yet that can refute or negate my points"

Of course,silly me,that makes you right then!

"I have read some of your other posts , which have been quite effectively challenging by other writers .Perhaps thats why you are trying your luck with me ?"

See it all the time.'I can construct a post with longer words than you,' This of course makes you a better person of higher knowledge and everything you say is correct.
Time will tell,what are you moaners actually doing about it?
Been to a solicitor yet?
I bet within a few days time,perhaps later next week this thread will die down when you find out that your spurious claims are found out to be what they,and you are...laughable.

ps your grammar is getting worse ;-)
[quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]born n breed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .[/p][/quote]Have none of you women got jobs ?[/p][/quote]Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .[/p][/quote]"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?[/p][/quote]You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .[/p][/quote]You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.[/p][/quote]So the wall has a friend ! Excellent , he needs some help , I have every reason to be on here , the article is about my childs school . Whats your excuse , apart from to save your drowning friend because hes in way over his depth ? Might I suggest you go to the top , read all the comments through , come back to me when youve caught up with the rest of us ! And you are certainly not in any position to lecture me on grammar , check your own ! I think weve all figured out by now that there are a few trolls on here , probably affiliated with the newshopper , trying to drag people into arguments to distract from the original article , which has now been shown to be factually incorrect and morally wrong . We wont bite , if you think that by making insulting and inflammatory remarks you are going to draw us into some sort of slanging match , thereby making ourselves , and the school , look bad , you are wrong . The overwhelming message from all the comments is that the school is good , the newspaper is wrong , so I think we are all pretty much done with this . Thanks for the free advertising ! Good day ![/p][/quote]Where is it factually incorrect? How and why is it morally wrong?[/p][/quote]Its factually incorrect because it reports that GFS is beieved to be the only school in the Borough with a no mobile phone policy . It is , in fact , the third school locally to implement this policy , the other two are currently the highest performing schools in the area at GCSE ( GFS is new and therefore doesnt have any data to compare against ) . I did point this out earlier . I think you could argue that its morally wrong because pictures have been used out of context for their original purpose , and with the sole intention of making the school , and therefore the students , look bad , you could even say , discriminatory . However , Ive pretty much said everything that I want to on this subject , and have not come across anyone yet that can refute or negate my points , so I probably wont be adding anything further . I have read some of your other posts , which have been quite effectively challenging by other writers .Perhaps thats why you are trying your luck with me ?[/p][/quote]"Its factually incorrect because it reports that GFS is beieved to be the only school in the Borough....." Well that changes everything,what a huge and damming inaccuracy! !I think you could argue that its morally wrong because pictures have been used out of context for their original purpose , Well i don't.Its a photo of pupils in an item about a school.What photo would you like,farm animals,cars or anything not associated with a school. "and with the sole intention of making the school , and therefore the students , look bad , you could even say discriminatory" Best nonsense you have written! You honestly think that the NS has deliberately set out to make the school and its pupils look bad,for what reason do you base this ridiculous statement on? And discriminatory,have you read the definition?You are truly clutching at straws now and getting more and more absurd with every rant. "and have not come across anyone yet that can refute or negate my points" Of course,silly me,that makes you right then! "I have read some of your other posts , which have been quite effectively challenging by other writers .Perhaps thats why you are trying your luck with me ?" See it all the time.'I can construct a post with longer words than you,' This of course makes you a better person of higher knowledge and everything you say is correct. Time will tell,what are you moaners actually doing about it? Been to a solicitor yet? I bet within a few days time,perhaps later next week this thread will die down when you find out that your spurious claims are found out to be what they,and you are...laughable. ps your grammar is getting worse ;-) lord righteous

2:36pm Fri 12 Oct 12

phoenixrising1 says...

Ok , so you agree that the article is factually incorrect , and you accept that no-one has been able to refute or negate my points .

So Im right .

Whether NS is lazy or mailicious , im not sure , but neither are anything to be proud of .

I dont recall metioning a solicitor , im sure its not anything I need to worry about . I can only assume that as the author of the article couldnt be bothered to check his facts about phones , he didnt bother researching the team behind setting up nthe school either . Good luck with that one !

So thats all sorted then !


PS

The grammars not really an issue , I can cope with that !

You neednt bother replying if you are just going to agree with what Ive said and support my arguments , it kind of defeats the object of a right to reply .
Ok , so you agree that the article is factually incorrect , and you accept that no-one has been able to refute or negate my points . So Im right . Whether NS is lazy or mailicious , im not sure , but neither are anything to be proud of . I dont recall metioning a solicitor , im sure its not anything I need to worry about . I can only assume that as the author of the article couldnt be bothered to check his facts about phones , he didnt bother researching the team behind setting up nthe school either . Good luck with that one ! So thats all sorted then ! PS The grammars not really an issue , I can cope with that ! You neednt bother replying if you are just going to agree with what Ive said and support my arguments , it kind of defeats the object of a right to reply . phoenixrising1

3:17pm Fri 12 Oct 12

born n breed says...

phoenixrising1 wrote:
born n breed wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
born n breed wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
born n breed wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote:
the wall wrote:
phoenixrising1 wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .
Have none of you women got jobs ?
Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .
"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?
You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .
You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.
So the wall has a friend ! Excellent , he needs some help , I have every reason to be on here , the article is about my childs school . Whats your excuse , apart from to save your drowning friend because hes in way over his depth ? Might I suggest you go to the top , read all the comments through , come back to me when youve caught up with the rest of us ! And you are certainly not in any position to lecture me on grammar , check your own ! I think weve all figured out by now that there are a few trolls on here , probably affiliated with the newshopper , trying to drag people into arguments to distract from the original article , which has now been shown to be factually incorrect and morally wrong . We wont bite , if you think that by making insulting and inflammatory remarks you are going to draw us into some sort of slanging match , thereby making ourselves , and the school , look bad , you are wrong . The overwhelming message from all the comments is that the school is good , the newspaper is wrong , so I think we are all pretty much done with this . Thanks for the free advertising ! Good day !
Don't know the wall and I don't always agree with what they write. But I know they can stand up for them self. I don't claim to be some well educated person unlike you. I don't like nasty people like you. You're a bully and stuck up. You think you are better than other people. Tell me this if you were having 7 bells kick out of you would what some one like me or the wall to help you. Your back hole smells the same as everyone else, so stop thinking you are better than others. I'm sure the school is very good but the behaviour of some of the parents leaves a lot to be desired.
I cant ever imagine a scenario whereby I would require assistance from either yourself or the wall to be honest . Although its interesting that you would make reference to a violent assault , have you had that sort of experience before ? Perhaps youve been attacked in some way , much the same as our children have been ? The school is very good by the way , thanks for pointing that out , as its the reason we are actually all posting on here , because we want to defend our school from an unfair attack . I wonder if you have actually read all of the posts , and can see who is challenging the article as incorrect , and who is challenging the challengers , to draw attention away from what is , quite an unpleasent article . You see the wall , the person who you have jumped in to defend , is trying to prevent us from defending our children . Do you want to be part of that ? Do you hate women and children too ? Is your name born and breed because you were born , breed children , but dont actually raise any of them , and thats why you are struggling to see our point of view ?
Do bore off! This is getting very boring with you churning out the same old sterotypes. You jump on anything and twist it, you are starting to sound like a bleating foal. I do feel you have been caught hook, line and sinker. Well done for playing the game but it's you that has been played.
I dont think so , I think the fact that you are not able to answer any of my points shows that it is you , who has " been played " as you put it . Caught hook line and sinker ? How so ? Please do explain . Because you cant respond , you are trying to direct it back at me . Thats not sufficient to win the argument im afraid . Feel free to have another go . And as for me jumping on things and twisting them , its called being attentive , and I would suggest that it is you , who is getting twisted up , by me .
Blah Blah Blah.
[quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]born n breed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]born n breed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]born n breed[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the wall[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: I notice that since I drew attention in a previous comment to the poor researching for the article and the fact that it was factually incorrect regarding being the only school with a no mobile phone policy locally , that it has been shortened to remove the offending paragraphs . Is that to spare the authors blushes ?( You could hardly call him a journalist ). Pehaps the proof reader and editor should be sharing his shame ? I think it pertinent to add at this point that the other two schools locally with a no mobile phone policy ( St Thomas More Secondary and Harris Academy Falconwood ) are also the two highest performing schools in the area , so I think you could use this evidence to prove statistically that there is a link between academic achievement and a no mobile phone policy . The lesson here is that if you want your child to do well in school you should look for an establishment which has strict rules that are consistently applied .[/p][/quote]Have none of you women got jobs ?[/p][/quote]Yes I do have a job thank you " the wall " ( its that your name because talking to you is like that saying " I might as well be talking to a brick wall " ? ) Im also completely computer literate and therefore able to work and respond to this article ( if you can call it that ) at the same time . Notice that I didnt perpetuate your sexist discrimination by saying us women can multitask ? Is playground name calling the best you can do ? I must have touched a nerve seeing as you are so upset , but cant actually counteract with any kind of coherent argument .[/p][/quote]"I might as well be talking to a brick wall" Oh you're so clever, did you think that one up all by yourself and did you think you're the first person to say that ? phoenixrising - is that your name ? So you're an old burned up bird are ya? (See I can play your childish game as well) sexist discrimination by saying us women - Oh please do take a running jump on that one. Where are you from ..... mumsnet? multitask - MMMM Doing lots of tasks badly instead of doing a good of the task in hand. Is playground name calling the best you can do ? Sorry plwease do point out the words I have used in name calling. How am I upset by words on a screen from random strangers? "counteract with any kind of coherent argument" You are very hostile. Why do I need to counteract ? Why are you looking for an argument? Do you have PMT ?[/p][/quote]You still havent managed to answer any of the points of this debate . And you cant even stereotype properly , saying " you women " when if you had read all the comments you would see that there are comments from both males and females. You are obviously finding it difficult to keep up , so ill frame it for you , this is a discussion about school rules , and adherance to them , so please feel free to discuss ,making your remarks relevant to the points which have been made . I manage to do lots of things well , which is why im employed during an economic slump , probably due to my excellent education , which is why im eager for my child to have the same opportunities . Im not affiliated to any group , Im posting as a parent , and as someone who works in education , which , if you did your research and read my comments , you would know Your abuse is just a distraction technique , which as somebody who works with young people with behaviour management issues , I can easily see through . You do it because you are frustrated at your lack of ability to show my comments to be incorrect , and you cant handle the feelings of inadequacy , so you are spiteful in response , its called " dumping" , you take your feelings out on other people . Why are you struggling ? Perhaps you went to a low rate school , which is why you can only insult , and not put forward anything which might add to , or negate , what anyone else has said ? You need to counteract because thats what the point of replying is . . . And im not looking for an argument , its an intellectual debate , which you seem to have missed the point of , as I said , probably due to your low rate education , shame you didnt have access to a GFS , perhaps you would be able to structure a response . I would recommend anger management and counselling to help you deal with your feelings .[/p][/quote]You need help and think you're better than others. There is so many holes in your comment. Can I ask who put you in charge or are you just a control freak? Debates can move in different directions and you say it's an intellectual debate you are looking for. Yet you're the one on the News Shopper web site, how stupid are you. Is this how you get your kicks by trying to making other people feel insufficient. If you are clever and think the wall is in need of help. Then why have you just stamped all over their views and basically been a bully. Surely with all your excellent education you would have know all this. Due to your excellent education have you have forgotten many of the basics of grammar.[/p][/quote]So the wall has a friend ! Excellent , he needs some help , I have every reason to be on here , the article is about my childs school . Whats your excuse , apart from to save your drowning friend because hes in way over his depth ? Might I suggest you go to the top , read all the comments through , come back to me when youve caught up with the rest of us ! And you are certainly not in any position to lecture me on grammar , check your own ! I think weve all figured out by now that there are a few trolls on here , probably affiliated with the newshopper , trying to drag people into arguments to distract from the original article , which has now been shown to be factually incorrect and morally wrong . We wont bite , if you think that by making insulting and inflammatory remarks you are going to draw us into some sort of slanging match , thereby making ourselves , and the school , look bad , you are wrong . The overwhelming message from all the comments is that the school is good , the newspaper is wrong , so I think we are all pretty much done with this . Thanks for the free advertising ! Good day ![/p][/quote]Don't know the wall and I don't always agree with what they write. But I know they can stand up for them self. I don't claim to be some well educated person unlike you. I don't like nasty people like you. You're a bully and stuck up. You think you are better than other people. Tell me this if you were having 7 bells kick out of you would what some one like me or the wall to help you. Your back hole smells the same as everyone else, so stop thinking you are better than others. I'm sure the school is very good but the behaviour of some of the parents leaves a lot to be desired.[/p][/quote]I cant ever imagine a scenario whereby I would require assistance from either yourself or the wall to be honest . Although its interesting that you would make reference to a violent assault , have you had that sort of experience before ? Perhaps youve been attacked in some way , much the same as our children have been ? The school is very good by the way , thanks for pointing that out , as its the reason we are actually all posting on here , because we want to defend our school from an unfair attack . I wonder if you have actually read all of the posts , and can see who is challenging the article as incorrect , and who is challenging the challengers , to draw attention away from what is , quite an unpleasent article . You see the wall , the person who you have jumped in to defend , is trying to prevent us from defending our children . Do you want to be part of that ? Do you hate women and children too ? Is your name born and breed because you were born , breed children , but dont actually raise any of them , and thats why you are struggling to see our point of view ?[/p][/quote]Do bore off! This is getting very boring with you churning out the same old sterotypes. You jump on anything and twist it, you are starting to sound like a bleating foal. I do feel you have been caught hook, line and sinker. Well done for playing the game but it's you that has been played.[/p][/quote]I dont think so , I think the fact that you are not able to answer any of my points shows that it is you , who has " been played " as you put it . Caught hook line and sinker ? How so ? Please do explain . Because you cant respond , you are trying to direct it back at me . Thats not sufficient to win the argument im afraid . Feel free to have another go . And as for me jumping on things and twisting them , its called being attentive , and I would suggest that it is you , who is getting twisted up , by me .[/p][/quote]Blah Blah Blah. born n breed

3:33pm Fri 12 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

phoenixrising1 wrote:
Ok , so you agree that the article is factually incorrect , and you accept that no-one has been able to refute or negate my points .

So Im right .

Whether NS is lazy or mailicious , im not sure , but neither are anything to be proud of .

I dont recall metioning a solicitor , im sure its not anything I need to worry about . I can only assume that as the author of the article couldnt be bothered to check his facts about phones , he didnt bother researching the team behind setting up nthe school either . Good luck with that one !

So thats all sorted then !


PS

The grammars not really an issue , I can cope with that !

You neednt bother replying if you are just going to agree with what Ive said and support my arguments , it kind of defeats the object of a right to reply .
HA!HA!HA!

"so you agree that the article is factually incorrect"
Where does the incorrect statement appear in the above editorial,you are making statements up now?

"I think you could argue that its morally wrong because pictures have been used out of context for their original purpose , and with the sole intention of making the school , and therefore the students , look bad , you could even say , discriminatory ".

Your words,not mine.Now you are saying it is just lazy and malicious.So is it just bad journalism you are mad over or is their a sinister plot going on at the NS? If it was malicious or discriminatory you could go to a solicitor to right this wrong you see,but you now seem to realise you are just being a silly woman and stand no chance of proving yourself 'right'.

"and you accept that no-one has been able to refute or negate my points"

That does not make you right.I bet you are fun at a quiz night!
Oh! what a fun house yours must be!
[quote][p][bold]phoenixrising1[/bold] wrote: Ok , so you agree that the article is factually incorrect , and you accept that no-one has been able to refute or negate my points . So Im right . Whether NS is lazy or mailicious , im not sure , but neither are anything to be proud of . I dont recall metioning a solicitor , im sure its not anything I need to worry about . I can only assume that as the author of the article couldnt be bothered to check his facts about phones , he didnt bother researching the team behind setting up nthe school either . Good luck with that one ! So thats all sorted then ! PS The grammars not really an issue , I can cope with that ! You neednt bother replying if you are just going to agree with what Ive said and support my arguments , it kind of defeats the object of a right to reply .[/p][/quote]HA!HA!HA! "so you agree that the article is factually incorrect" Where does the incorrect statement appear in the above editorial,you are making statements up now? "I think you could argue that its morally wrong because pictures have been used out of context for their original purpose , and with the sole intention of making the school , and therefore the students , look bad , you could even say , discriminatory ". Your words,not mine.Now you are saying it is just lazy and malicious.So is it just bad journalism you are mad over or is their a sinister plot going on at the NS? If it was malicious or discriminatory you could go to a solicitor to right this wrong you see,but you now seem to realise you are just being a silly woman and stand no chance of proving yourself 'right'. "and you accept that no-one has been able to refute or negate my points" That does not make you right.I bet you are fun at a quiz night! Oh! what a fun house yours must be! lord righteous

4:56pm Fri 12 Oct 12

Deefea says...

lord righteous wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Just face facts.
You are just a moaning minnie with nothing better to do.Its not like your kids,even though you could just about see 1 of them, where 'put at risk' of anything.
I really cannot see what all the fuss is about!
Typical of today though,you have the mum in the original story moaning about something that she signed up 'not to do',and then did it.
Then you have you lot moaning about a single photo that you lot claim puts your child at risk,is defamatory,slanderou





s and libelous.
Go on then,use your superior brain,hire a lawyer,take all and sundry to court (thats what it is about,'compo' time) and see where you get.
How can so many different people complain about their kid in the photo when only 1 face is visible?
Thats why so many kids today are the way they are,they have parents like you moaning left right and centre about how their kids are being treated unfairly.
I hope the NS does apologise,it will get rid of you lot
I think its actually more embarrassing that I have a right to have a say here, as its my child, whereas you stalk web pages within your work hours whilst getting paid to do a job you clearly are not doing! (Glad you fulfilled your career as a non entity) to leave snide comments that have no substance. I think if you actually look at the problem with society, its you. You are one big ball of irony and you don't even know what you agree/disagree with, no continuity and no reason to be here. You must be very bored. We all laughed too when we saw your comments elsewhere on other stories etc, sums you up nicely! I think Pot Kettle Black actually refers to you. My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses a **** like you. (excuse the profanity I could not think of a more appropriate word, hope you understand how much it suits you). Oh and in your angry button bashing, you have let your grammar slide........what a shame :(
I was always taught that if you use 'rude' language then you have lost the argument as you cannot think of anything positive to say.
You are so obviously better educated than me but,you either cannot read or cannot answer the questions i put.
How has your child been put at risk?
How has he been defamed?
How has he been libeled?
How has he been slandered?
It is a picture of kids with plates on their faces.
So to your point on using work time to post here,are you at work posting on here or are you a 'stay at home mummy?'
"My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses......"
How does YOU working hard get HIM to a level?

What actually do you want from this perceived 'wrong?'
I was always taught to call it as I see it. I think that speaks for itself. Yes to all of your questions, not that you are worthy of this answer really. Yes I have a very sturdy career, am very well respected and fear that I pose a threat to you, being female and with a voice. If you cannot see the photo's propaganda and its intention, I would suggest you leave the comments to those that do. I would also suggest that a morally sturdy family with excellent ethics and having worked extremely hard to give our children the best start, would speak for itself, I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough and insignificant enough to waste his life writing blurb on a wall that actually has nothing to do with him. You are very amusing as I do not think you realise how you look. I have a right to be here as I have stated so many times before. Perhaps if your own mother stood for half of my morals, you would be occupying your time much better (just a thought). I am happy to feed your obsession and respond to allow you more text time, as I am fortunate to be able to chose my working hours and dedicate some of my day to you, you to make you go home at night and feel complete. I think you have misjudged many people who normally read NS, we are not all like you. Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech? Your title Lord T-W-A-T is so apt; there is no winner or loser as far as I see it as you have a distinct disadvantage, so would be unfair really. Therefore I am happy to hand you your crown, I think you deserve it more than anyone for your dedication in showing yourself up.
To answer your question, as I would hate to leave you hanging. I need no financial gain at all; but want an apology. I do not want my son affiliated with a story that we do not support, most of all I want an apology for the cleverly depicted photograph NS selected to ensure the school was represented as a prison camp. I do not support photos being used maliciously.

Just a thought, if you don't work for NS, why not give yourself a chance? They obviously support malicious and rude people, you would fit in very well and get paid for your time on here? I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl ;)
.
"am very well respected"
By who,seems a little desperate to me?

"If you cannot see the photo's propaganda"
Please enlighten us.

"I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough"
No you can't.

"I have a right to be here"
So does everyone else.

"I do not think you realise how you look"
Touche.

"Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech?"
And you can?

"but want an apology"
For what?

"we are not all like you"
Or like you ,thankfully.

"I do not support photos being used maliciously"
How is it malicious?

"I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl"
I bet you surprise a lot of people.

A childs (part) face in a photo and WW3 breaks out,have you not got anything better to do?
OK, Just for fun I will play! I love a game ;)

"am very well respected"
By who,seems a little desperate to me?
Jealousy gets you nowhere.

"If you cannot see the photo's propaganda"
Please enlighten us.
This is a bit unfair, you are selling yourself short again, I hate to see you make yourself look silly and have to post it a 10th time :(

"I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough"
No you can't.
How do you know I can't. I so can.

"I have a right to be here"
So does everyone else
They do, but people with children involved in the reason we are here, definitely a priority seat, you would have to be second class (no change there then)

"I do not think you realise how you look"
Touche.
Touche x infinity

"Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech?"
And you can?
And you can? (referring to your previous post, will have to start calling you Dory)

"but want an apology"
For what?
Come on, this one is not fair on you? Makes you look silly again! I don't want to cheat.

"we are not all like you"
Or like you ,thankfully.
Or like me, "sadly" :(

"I do not support photos being used maliciously"
How is it malicious?
How is it not?

"I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl"
I bet you surprise a lot of people.
I surprised you.

A childs (part) face in a photo and WW3 breaks out,have you not got anything better to do?
Yes but I have have the time to choose, besides I like watching you be verbally squashed every time you think you have a good line.
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Just face facts. You are just a moaning minnie with nothing better to do.Its not like your kids,even though you could just about see 1 of them, where 'put at risk' of anything. I really cannot see what all the fuss is about! Typical of today though,you have the mum in the original story moaning about something that she signed up 'not to do',and then did it. Then you have you lot moaning about a single photo that you lot claim puts your child at risk,is defamatory,slanderou s and libelous. Go on then,use your superior brain,hire a lawyer,take all and sundry to court (thats what it is about,'compo' time) and see where you get. How can so many different people complain about their kid in the photo when only 1 face is visible? Thats why so many kids today are the way they are,they have parents like you moaning left right and centre about how their kids are being treated unfairly. I hope the NS does apologise,it will get rid of you lot[/p][/quote]I think its actually more embarrassing that I have a right to have a say here, as its my child, whereas you stalk web pages within your work hours whilst getting paid to do a job you clearly are not doing! (Glad you fulfilled your career as a non entity) to leave snide comments that have no substance. I think if you actually look at the problem with society, its you. You are one big ball of irony and you don't even know what you agree/disagree with, no continuity and no reason to be here. You must be very bored. We all laughed too when we saw your comments elsewhere on other stories etc, sums you up nicely! I think Pot Kettle Black actually refers to you. My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses a **** like you. (excuse the profanity I could not think of a more appropriate word, hope you understand how much it suits you). Oh and in your angry button bashing, you have let your grammar slide........what a shame :([/p][/quote]I was always taught that if you use 'rude' language then you have lost the argument as you cannot think of anything positive to say. You are so obviously better educated than me but,you either cannot read or cannot answer the questions i put. How has your child been put at risk? How has he been defamed? How has he been libeled? How has he been slandered? It is a picture of kids with plates on their faces. So to your point on using work time to post here,are you at work posting on here or are you a 'stay at home mummy?' "My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses......" How does YOU working hard get HIM to a level? What actually do you want from this perceived 'wrong?'[/p][/quote]I was always taught to call it as I see it. I think that speaks for itself. Yes to all of your questions, not that you are worthy of this answer really. Yes I have a very sturdy career, am very well respected and fear that I pose a threat to you, being female and with a voice. If you cannot see the photo's propaganda and its intention, I would suggest you leave the comments to those that do. I would also suggest that a morally sturdy family with excellent ethics and having worked extremely hard to give our children the best start, would speak for itself, I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough and insignificant enough to waste his life writing blurb on a wall that actually has nothing to do with him. You are very amusing as I do not think you realise how you look. I have a right to be here as I have stated so many times before. Perhaps if your own mother stood for half of my morals, you would be occupying your time much better (just a thought). I am happy to feed your obsession and respond to allow you more text time, as I am fortunate to be able to chose my working hours and dedicate some of my day to you, you to make you go home at night and feel complete. I think you have misjudged many people who normally read NS, we are not all like you. Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech? Your title Lord T-W-A-T is so apt; there is no winner or loser as far as I see it as you have a distinct disadvantage, so would be unfair really. Therefore I am happy to hand you your crown, I think you deserve it more than anyone for your dedication in showing yourself up. To answer your question, as I would hate to leave you hanging. I need no financial gain at all; but want an apology. I do not want my son affiliated with a story that we do not support, most of all I want an apology for the cleverly depicted photograph NS selected to ensure the school was represented as a prison camp. I do not support photos being used maliciously. Just a thought, if you don't work for NS, why not give yourself a chance? They obviously support malicious and rude people, you would fit in very well and get paid for your time on here? I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl ;) .[/p][/quote]"am very well respected" By who,seems a little desperate to me? "If you cannot see the photo's propaganda" Please enlighten us. "I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough" No you can't. "I have a right to be here" So does everyone else. "I do not think you realise how you look" Touche. "Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech?" And you can? "but want an apology" For what? "we are not all like you" Or like you ,thankfully. "I do not support photos being used maliciously" How is it malicious? "I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl" I bet you surprise a lot of people. A childs (part) face in a photo and WW3 breaks out,have you not got anything better to do?[/p][/quote]OK, Just for fun I will play! I love a game ;) "am very well respected" By who,seems a little desperate to me? Jealousy gets you nowhere. "If you cannot see the photo's propaganda" Please enlighten us. This is a bit unfair, you are selling yourself short again, I hate to see you make yourself look silly and have to post it a 10th time :( "I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough" No you can't. How do you know I can't. I so can. "I have a right to be here" So does everyone else They do, but people with children involved in the reason we are here, definitely a priority seat, you would have to be second class (no change there then) "I do not think you realise how you look" Touche. Touche x infinity "Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech?" And you can? And you can? (referring to your previous post, will have to start calling you Dory) "but want an apology" For what? Come on, this one is not fair on you? Makes you look silly again! I don't want to cheat. "we are not all like you" Or like you ,thankfully. Or like me, "sadly" :( "I do not support photos being used maliciously" How is it malicious? How is it not? "I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl" I bet you surprise a lot of people. I surprised you. A childs (part) face in a photo and WW3 breaks out,have you not got anything better to do? Yes but I have have the time to choose, besides I like watching you be verbally squashed every time you think you have a good line. Deefea

5:17pm Fri 12 Oct 12

Gypo.Joe says...

Deefea = another drama queen.
Deefea = another drama queen. Gypo.Joe

5:20pm Fri 12 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Just face facts.
You are just a moaning minnie with nothing better to do.Its not like your kids,even though you could just about see 1 of them, where 'put at risk' of anything.
I really cannot see what all the fuss is about!
Typical of today though,you have the mum in the original story moaning about something that she signed up 'not to do',and then did it.
Then you have you lot moaning about a single photo that you lot claim puts your child at risk,is defamatory,slanderou






s and libelous.
Go on then,use your superior brain,hire a lawyer,take all and sundry to court (thats what it is about,'compo' time) and see where you get.
How can so many different people complain about their kid in the photo when only 1 face is visible?
Thats why so many kids today are the way they are,they have parents like you moaning left right and centre about how their kids are being treated unfairly.
I hope the NS does apologise,it will get rid of you lot
I think its actually more embarrassing that I have a right to have a say here, as its my child, whereas you stalk web pages within your work hours whilst getting paid to do a job you clearly are not doing! (Glad you fulfilled your career as a non entity) to leave snide comments that have no substance. I think if you actually look at the problem with society, its you. You are one big ball of irony and you don't even know what you agree/disagree with, no continuity and no reason to be here. You must be very bored. We all laughed too when we saw your comments elsewhere on other stories etc, sums you up nicely! I think Pot Kettle Black actually refers to you. My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses a **** like you. (excuse the profanity I could not think of a more appropriate word, hope you understand how much it suits you). Oh and in your angry button bashing, you have let your grammar slide........what a shame :(
I was always taught that if you use 'rude' language then you have lost the argument as you cannot think of anything positive to say.
You are so obviously better educated than me but,you either cannot read or cannot answer the questions i put.
How has your child been put at risk?
How has he been defamed?
How has he been libeled?
How has he been slandered?
It is a picture of kids with plates on their faces.
So to your point on using work time to post here,are you at work posting on here or are you a 'stay at home mummy?'
"My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses......"
How does YOU working hard get HIM to a level?

What actually do you want from this perceived 'wrong?'
I was always taught to call it as I see it. I think that speaks for itself. Yes to all of your questions, not that you are worthy of this answer really. Yes I have a very sturdy career, am very well respected and fear that I pose a threat to you, being female and with a voice. If you cannot see the photo's propaganda and its intention, I would suggest you leave the comments to those that do. I would also suggest that a morally sturdy family with excellent ethics and having worked extremely hard to give our children the best start, would speak for itself, I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough and insignificant enough to waste his life writing blurb on a wall that actually has nothing to do with him. You are very amusing as I do not think you realise how you look. I have a right to be here as I have stated so many times before. Perhaps if your own mother stood for half of my morals, you would be occupying your time much better (just a thought). I am happy to feed your obsession and respond to allow you more text time, as I am fortunate to be able to chose my working hours and dedicate some of my day to you, you to make you go home at night and feel complete. I think you have misjudged many people who normally read NS, we are not all like you. Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech? Your title Lord T-W-A-T is so apt; there is no winner or loser as far as I see it as you have a distinct disadvantage, so would be unfair really. Therefore I am happy to hand you your crown, I think you deserve it more than anyone for your dedication in showing yourself up.
To answer your question, as I would hate to leave you hanging. I need no financial gain at all; but want an apology. I do not want my son affiliated with a story that we do not support, most of all I want an apology for the cleverly depicted photograph NS selected to ensure the school was represented as a prison camp. I do not support photos being used maliciously.

Just a thought, if you don't work for NS, why not give yourself a chance? They obviously support malicious and rude people, you would fit in very well and get paid for your time on here? I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl ;)
.
"am very well respected"
By who,seems a little desperate to me?

"If you cannot see the photo's propaganda"
Please enlighten us.

"I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough"
No you can't.

"I have a right to be here"
So does everyone else.

"I do not think you realise how you look"
Touche.

"Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech?"
And you can?

"but want an apology"
For what?

"we are not all like you"
Or like you ,thankfully.

"I do not support photos being used maliciously"
How is it malicious?

"I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl"
I bet you surprise a lot of people.

A childs (part) face in a photo and WW3 breaks out,have you not got anything better to do?
OK, Just for fun I will play! I love a game ;)

"am very well respected"
By who,seems a little desperate to me?
Jealousy gets you nowhere.

"If you cannot see the photo's propaganda"
Please enlighten us.
This is a bit unfair, you are selling yourself short again, I hate to see you make yourself look silly and have to post it a 10th time :(

"I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough"
No you can't.
How do you know I can't. I so can.

"I have a right to be here"
So does everyone else
They do, but people with children involved in the reason we are here, definitely a priority seat, you would have to be second class (no change there then)

"I do not think you realise how you look"
Touche.
Touche x infinity

"Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech?"
And you can?
And you can? (referring to your previous post, will have to start calling you Dory)

"but want an apology"
For what?
Come on, this one is not fair on you? Makes you look silly again! I don't want to cheat.

"we are not all like you"
Or like you ,thankfully.
Or like me, "sadly" :(

"I do not support photos being used maliciously"
How is it malicious?
How is it not?

"I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl"
I bet you surprise a lot of people.
I surprised you.

A childs (part) face in a photo and WW3 breaks out,have you not got anything better to do?
Yes but I have have the time to choose, besides I like watching you be verbally squashed every time you think you have a good line.
"am very well respected"
By who,seems a little desperate to me?
Jealousy gets you nowhere.
Facts get you everywhere,you have none except your bloated ego.

"If you cannot see the photo's propaganda"
Please enlighten us.
This is a bit unfair, you are selling yourself short again, I hate to see you make yourself look silly and have to post it a 10th time :(
Propaganda for what,you are looking silly again.Yet no facts again!

"I have a right to be here"
So does everyone else
They do, but people with children involved in the reason we are here, definitely a priority seat, you would have to be second class (no change there then)
Is your child the one with the face NOT covered by a plate,if not what is your problem then?

"Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech?"
And you can?
And you can? (referring to your previous post, will have to start calling you Dory)
Did i say i decide,you seem to think you have the right to.

"but want an apology"
For what?
Come on, this one is not fair on you? Makes you look silly again! I don't want to cheat.
Still not answered though have you.An article about a school uses a photo of children from the said school,and you want an apology...FOR WHAT?

"I do not support photos being used maliciously"
How is it malicious?
How is it not?

Def' of malicious is: Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful
Are you still saying the NS has a vendetta,WHAT IS MALICIOUS ABOUT THE ARTICLE,STILL NO ANSWER,EH!

"I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl"
I bet you surprise a lot of people.
I surprised you.

How have you surprised me,see your like all the time!

A childs (part) face in a photo and WW3 breaks out,have you not got anything better to do?
Yes but I have have the time to choose, besides I like watching you be verbally squashed every time you think you have a good line.

How have i been verbally squashed by you?
It (the article/photo) started out as
defamatory, libel and slanderous,went to vindictive and now you say it is lazy and malicious!
How about actually answering a question with a fact,not what you think is right or with some quip that you think makes you look cleverer than what you are?
It is,and remains a photo of children from a school that an article was written about.It is not false,slanderous,mal
icious or any other word you can think of....except TRUE
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Just face facts. You are just a moaning minnie with nothing better to do.Its not like your kids,even though you could just about see 1 of them, where 'put at risk' of anything. I really cannot see what all the fuss is about! Typical of today though,you have the mum in the original story moaning about something that she signed up 'not to do',and then did it. Then you have you lot moaning about a single photo that you lot claim puts your child at risk,is defamatory,slanderou s and libelous. Go on then,use your superior brain,hire a lawyer,take all and sundry to court (thats what it is about,'compo' time) and see where you get. How can so many different people complain about their kid in the photo when only 1 face is visible? Thats why so many kids today are the way they are,they have parents like you moaning left right and centre about how their kids are being treated unfairly. I hope the NS does apologise,it will get rid of you lot[/p][/quote]I think its actually more embarrassing that I have a right to have a say here, as its my child, whereas you stalk web pages within your work hours whilst getting paid to do a job you clearly are not doing! (Glad you fulfilled your career as a non entity) to leave snide comments that have no substance. I think if you actually look at the problem with society, its you. You are one big ball of irony and you don't even know what you agree/disagree with, no continuity and no reason to be here. You must be very bored. We all laughed too when we saw your comments elsewhere on other stories etc, sums you up nicely! I think Pot Kettle Black actually refers to you. My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses a **** like you. (excuse the profanity I could not think of a more appropriate word, hope you understand how much it suits you). Oh and in your angry button bashing, you have let your grammar slide........what a shame :([/p][/quote]I was always taught that if you use 'rude' language then you have lost the argument as you cannot think of anything positive to say. You are so obviously better educated than me but,you either cannot read or cannot answer the questions i put. How has your child been put at risk? How has he been defamed? How has he been libeled? How has he been slandered? It is a picture of kids with plates on their faces. So to your point on using work time to post here,are you at work posting on here or are you a 'stay at home mummy?' "My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses......" How does YOU working hard get HIM to a level? What actually do you want from this perceived 'wrong?'[/p][/quote]I was always taught to call it as I see it. I think that speaks for itself. Yes to all of your questions, not that you are worthy of this answer really. Yes I have a very sturdy career, am very well respected and fear that I pose a threat to you, being female and with a voice. If you cannot see the photo's propaganda and its intention, I would suggest you leave the comments to those that do. I would also suggest that a morally sturdy family with excellent ethics and having worked extremely hard to give our children the best start, would speak for itself, I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough and insignificant enough to waste his life writing blurb on a wall that actually has nothing to do with him. You are very amusing as I do not think you realise how you look. I have a right to be here as I have stated so many times before. Perhaps if your own mother stood for half of my morals, you would be occupying your time much better (just a thought). I am happy to feed your obsession and respond to allow you more text time, as I am fortunate to be able to chose my working hours and dedicate some of my day to you, you to make you go home at night and feel complete. I think you have misjudged many people who normally read NS, we are not all like you. Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech? Your title Lord T-W-A-T is so apt; there is no winner or loser as far as I see it as you have a distinct disadvantage, so would be unfair really. Therefore I am happy to hand you your crown, I think you deserve it more than anyone for your dedication in showing yourself up. To answer your question, as I would hate to leave you hanging. I need no financial gain at all; but want an apology. I do not want my son affiliated with a story that we do not support, most of all I want an apology for the cleverly depicted photograph NS selected to ensure the school was represented as a prison camp. I do not support photos being used maliciously. Just a thought, if you don't work for NS, why not give yourself a chance? They obviously support malicious and rude people, you would fit in very well and get paid for your time on here? I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl ;) .[/p][/quote]"am very well respected" By who,seems a little desperate to me? "If you cannot see the photo's propaganda" Please enlighten us. "I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough" No you can't. "I have a right to be here" So does everyone else. "I do not think you realise how you look" Touche. "Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech?" And you can? "but want an apology" For what? "we are not all like you" Or like you ,thankfully. "I do not support photos being used maliciously" How is it malicious? "I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl" I bet you surprise a lot of people. A childs (part) face in a photo and WW3 breaks out,have you not got anything better to do?[/p][/quote]OK, Just for fun I will play! I love a game ;) "am very well respected" By who,seems a little desperate to me? Jealousy gets you nowhere. "If you cannot see the photo's propaganda" Please enlighten us. This is a bit unfair, you are selling yourself short again, I hate to see you make yourself look silly and have to post it a 10th time :( "I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough" No you can't. How do you know I can't. I so can. "I have a right to be here" So does everyone else They do, but people with children involved in the reason we are here, definitely a priority seat, you would have to be second class (no change there then) "I do not think you realise how you look" Touche. Touche x infinity "Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech?" And you can? And you can? (referring to your previous post, will have to start calling you Dory) "but want an apology" For what? Come on, this one is not fair on you? Makes you look silly again! I don't want to cheat. "we are not all like you" Or like you ,thankfully. Or like me, "sadly" :( "I do not support photos being used maliciously" How is it malicious? How is it not? "I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl" I bet you surprise a lot of people. I surprised you. A childs (part) face in a photo and WW3 breaks out,have you not got anything better to do? Yes but I have have the time to choose, besides I like watching you be verbally squashed every time you think you have a good line.[/p][/quote]"am very well respected" By who,seems a little desperate to me? Jealousy gets you nowhere. Facts get you everywhere,you have none except your bloated ego. "If you cannot see the photo's propaganda" Please enlighten us. This is a bit unfair, you are selling yourself short again, I hate to see you make yourself look silly and have to post it a 10th time :( Propaganda for what,you are looking silly again.Yet no facts again! "I have a right to be here" So does everyone else They do, but people with children involved in the reason we are here, definitely a priority seat, you would have to be second class (no change there then) Is your child the one with the face NOT covered by a plate,if not what is your problem then? "Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech?" And you can? And you can? (referring to your previous post, will have to start calling you Dory) Did i say i decide,you seem to think you have the right to. "but want an apology" For what? Come on, this one is not fair on you? Makes you look silly again! I don't want to cheat. Still not answered though have you.An article about a school uses a photo of children from the said school,and you want an apology...FOR WHAT? "I do not support photos being used maliciously" How is it malicious? How is it not? Def' of malicious is: Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful Are you still saying the NS has a vendetta,WHAT IS MALICIOUS ABOUT THE ARTICLE,STILL NO ANSWER,EH! "I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl" I bet you surprise a lot of people. I surprised you. How have you surprised me,see your like all the time! A childs (part) face in a photo and WW3 breaks out,have you not got anything better to do? Yes but I have have the time to choose, besides I like watching you be verbally squashed every time you think you have a good line. How have i been verbally squashed by you? It (the article/photo) started out as defamatory, libel and slanderous,went to vindictive and now you say it is lazy and malicious! How about actually answering a question with a fact,not what you think is right or with some quip that you think makes you look cleverer than what you are? It is,and remains a photo of children from a school that an article was written about.It is not false,slanderous,mal icious or any other word you can think of....except TRUE lord righteous

5:52pm Fri 12 Oct 12

Deefea says...

lord righteous wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Deefea wrote:
lord righteous wrote:
Just face facts.
You are just a moaning minnie with nothing better to do.Its not like your kids,even though you could just about see 1 of them, where 'put at risk' of anything.
I really cannot see what all the fuss is about!
Typical of today though,you have the mum in the original story moaning about something that she signed up 'not to do',and then did it.
Then you have you lot moaning about a single photo that you lot claim puts your child at risk,is defamatory,slanderou







s and libelous.
Go on then,use your superior brain,hire a lawyer,take all and sundry to court (thats what it is about,'compo' time) and see where you get.
How can so many different people complain about their kid in the photo when only 1 face is visible?
Thats why so many kids today are the way they are,they have parents like you moaning left right and centre about how their kids are being treated unfairly.
I hope the NS does apologise,it will get rid of you lot
I think its actually more embarrassing that I have a right to have a say here, as its my child, whereas you stalk web pages within your work hours whilst getting paid to do a job you clearly are not doing! (Glad you fulfilled your career as a non entity) to leave snide comments that have no substance. I think if you actually look at the problem with society, its you. You are one big ball of irony and you don't even know what you agree/disagree with, no continuity and no reason to be here. You must be very bored. We all laughed too when we saw your comments elsewhere on other stories etc, sums you up nicely! I think Pot Kettle Black actually refers to you. My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses a **** like you. (excuse the profanity I could not think of a more appropriate word, hope you understand how much it suits you). Oh and in your angry button bashing, you have let your grammar slide........what a shame :(
I was always taught that if you use 'rude' language then you have lost the argument as you cannot think of anything positive to say.
You are so obviously better educated than me but,you either cannot read or cannot answer the questions i put.
How has your child been put at risk?
How has he been defamed?
How has he been libeled?
How has he been slandered?
It is a picture of kids with plates on their faces.
So to your point on using work time to post here,are you at work posting on here or are you a 'stay at home mummy?'
"My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses......"
How does YOU working hard get HIM to a level?

What actually do you want from this perceived 'wrong?'
I was always taught to call it as I see it. I think that speaks for itself. Yes to all of your questions, not that you are worthy of this answer really. Yes I have a very sturdy career, am very well respected and fear that I pose a threat to you, being female and with a voice. If you cannot see the photo's propaganda and its intention, I would suggest you leave the comments to those that do. I would also suggest that a morally sturdy family with excellent ethics and having worked extremely hard to give our children the best start, would speak for itself, I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough and insignificant enough to waste his life writing blurb on a wall that actually has nothing to do with him. You are very amusing as I do not think you realise how you look. I have a right to be here as I have stated so many times before. Perhaps if your own mother stood for half of my morals, you would be occupying your time much better (just a thought). I am happy to feed your obsession and respond to allow you more text time, as I am fortunate to be able to chose my working hours and dedicate some of my day to you, you to make you go home at night and feel complete. I think you have misjudged many people who normally read NS, we are not all like you. Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech? Your title Lord T-W-A-T is so apt; there is no winner or loser as far as I see it as you have a distinct disadvantage, so would be unfair really. Therefore I am happy to hand you your crown, I think you deserve it more than anyone for your dedication in showing yourself up.
To answer your question, as I would hate to leave you hanging. I need no financial gain at all; but want an apology. I do not want my son affiliated with a story that we do not support, most of all I want an apology for the cleverly depicted photograph NS selected to ensure the school was represented as a prison camp. I do not support photos being used maliciously.

Just a thought, if you don't work for NS, why not give yourself a chance? They obviously support malicious and rude people, you would fit in very well and get paid for your time on here? I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl ;)
.
"am very well respected"
By who,seems a little desperate to me?

"If you cannot see the photo's propaganda"
Please enlighten us.

"I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough"
No you can't.

"I have a right to be here"
So does everyone else.

"I do not think you realise how you look"
Touche.

"Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech?"
And you can?

"but want an apology"
For what?

"we are not all like you"
Or like you ,thankfully.

"I do not support photos being used maliciously"
How is it malicious?

"I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl"
I bet you surprise a lot of people.

A childs (part) face in a photo and WW3 breaks out,have you not got anything better to do?
OK, Just for fun I will play! I love a game ;)

"am very well respected"
By who,seems a little desperate to me?
Jealousy gets you nowhere.

"If you cannot see the photo's propaganda"
Please enlighten us.
This is a bit unfair, you are selling yourself short again, I hate to see you make yourself look silly and have to post it a 10th time :(

"I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough"
No you can't.
How do you know I can't. I so can.

"I have a right to be here"
So does everyone else
They do, but people with children involved in the reason we are here, definitely a priority seat, you would have to be second class (no change there then)

"I do not think you realise how you look"
Touche.
Touche x infinity

"Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech?"
And you can?
And you can? (referring to your previous post, will have to start calling you Dory)

"but want an apology"
For what?
Come on, this one is not fair on you? Makes you look silly again! I don't want to cheat.

"we are not all like you"
Or like you ,thankfully.
Or like me, "sadly" :(

"I do not support photos being used maliciously"
How is it malicious?
How is it not?

"I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl"
I bet you surprise a lot of people.
I surprised you.

A childs (part) face in a photo and WW3 breaks out,have you not got anything better to do?
Yes but I have have the time to choose, besides I like watching you be verbally squashed every time you think you have a good line.
"am very well respected"
By who,seems a little desperate to me?
Jealousy gets you nowhere.
Facts get you everywhere,you have none except your bloated ego.

"If you cannot see the photo's propaganda"
Please enlighten us.
This is a bit unfair, you are selling yourself short again, I hate to see you make yourself look silly and have to post it a 10th time :(
Propaganda for what,you are looking silly again.Yet no facts again!

"I have a right to be here"
So does everyone else
They do, but people with children involved in the reason we are here, definitely a priority seat, you would have to be second class (no change there then)
Is your child the one with the face NOT covered by a plate,if not what is your problem then?

"Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech?"
And you can?
And you can? (referring to your previous post, will have to start calling you Dory)
Did i say i decide,you seem to think you have the right to.

"but want an apology"
For what?
Come on, this one is not fair on you? Makes you look silly again! I don't want to cheat.
Still not answered though have you.An article about a school uses a photo of children from the said school,and you want an apology...FOR WHAT?

"I do not support photos being used maliciously"
How is it malicious?
How is it not?

Def' of malicious is: Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful
Are you still saying the NS has a vendetta,WHAT IS MALICIOUS ABOUT THE ARTICLE,STILL NO ANSWER,EH!

"I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl"
I bet you surprise a lot of people.
I surprised you.

How have you surprised me,see your like all the time!

A childs (part) face in a photo and WW3 breaks out,have you not got anything better to do?
Yes but I have have the time to choose, besides I like watching you be verbally squashed every time you think you have a good line.

How have i been verbally squashed by you?
It (the article/photo) started out as
defamatory, libel and slanderous,went to vindictive and now you say it is lazy and malicious!
How about actually answering a question with a fact,not what you think is right or with some quip that you think makes you look cleverer than what you are?
It is,and remains a photo of children from a school that an article was written about.It is not false,slanderous,mal

icious or any other word you can think of....except TRUE
Yawn :) Turn the P.C. off and make your way home!
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Just face facts. You are just a moaning minnie with nothing better to do.Its not like your kids,even though you could just about see 1 of them, where 'put at risk' of anything. I really cannot see what all the fuss is about! Typical of today though,you have the mum in the original story moaning about something that she signed up 'not to do',and then did it. Then you have you lot moaning about a single photo that you lot claim puts your child at risk,is defamatory,slanderou s and libelous. Go on then,use your superior brain,hire a lawyer,take all and sundry to court (thats what it is about,'compo' time) and see where you get. How can so many different people complain about their kid in the photo when only 1 face is visible? Thats why so many kids today are the way they are,they have parents like you moaning left right and centre about how their kids are being treated unfairly. I hope the NS does apologise,it will get rid of you lot[/p][/quote]I think its actually more embarrassing that I have a right to have a say here, as its my child, whereas you stalk web pages within your work hours whilst getting paid to do a job you clearly are not doing! (Glad you fulfilled your career as a non entity) to leave snide comments that have no substance. I think if you actually look at the problem with society, its you. You are one big ball of irony and you don't even know what you agree/disagree with, no continuity and no reason to be here. You must be very bored. We all laughed too when we saw your comments elsewhere on other stories etc, sums you up nicely! I think Pot Kettle Black actually refers to you. My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses a **** like you. (excuse the profanity I could not think of a more appropriate word, hope you understand how much it suits you). Oh and in your angry button bashing, you have let your grammar slide........what a shame :([/p][/quote]I was always taught that if you use 'rude' language then you have lost the argument as you cannot think of anything positive to say. You are so obviously better educated than me but,you either cannot read or cannot answer the questions i put. How has your child been put at risk? How has he been defamed? How has he been libeled? How has he been slandered? It is a picture of kids with plates on their faces. So to your point on using work time to post here,are you at work posting on here or are you a 'stay at home mummy?' "My son is my worry and my reason for working hard and getting him to a level that surpasses......" How does YOU working hard get HIM to a level? What actually do you want from this perceived 'wrong?'[/p][/quote]I was always taught to call it as I see it. I think that speaks for itself. Yes to all of your questions, not that you are worthy of this answer really. Yes I have a very sturdy career, am very well respected and fear that I pose a threat to you, being female and with a voice. If you cannot see the photo's propaganda and its intention, I would suggest you leave the comments to those that do. I would also suggest that a morally sturdy family with excellent ethics and having worked extremely hard to give our children the best start, would speak for itself, I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough and insignificant enough to waste his life writing blurb on a wall that actually has nothing to do with him. You are very amusing as I do not think you realise how you look. I have a right to be here as I have stated so many times before. Perhaps if your own mother stood for half of my morals, you would be occupying your time much better (just a thought). I am happy to feed your obsession and respond to allow you more text time, as I am fortunate to be able to chose my working hours and dedicate some of my day to you, you to make you go home at night and feel complete. I think you have misjudged many people who normally read NS, we are not all like you. Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech? Your title Lord T-W-A-T is so apt; there is no winner or loser as far as I see it as you have a distinct disadvantage, so would be unfair really. Therefore I am happy to hand you your crown, I think you deserve it more than anyone for your dedication in showing yourself up. To answer your question, as I would hate to leave you hanging. I need no financial gain at all; but want an apology. I do not want my son affiliated with a story that we do not support, most of all I want an apology for the cleverly depicted photograph NS selected to ensure the school was represented as a prison camp. I do not support photos being used maliciously. Just a thought, if you don't work for NS, why not give yourself a chance? They obviously support malicious and rude people, you would fit in very well and get paid for your time on here? I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl ;) .[/p][/quote]"am very well respected" By who,seems a little desperate to me? "If you cannot see the photo's propaganda" Please enlighten us. "I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough" No you can't. "I have a right to be here" So does everyone else. "I do not think you realise how you look" Touche. "Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech?" And you can? "but want an apology" For what? "we are not all like you" Or like you ,thankfully. "I do not support photos being used maliciously" How is it malicious? "I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl" I bet you surprise a lot of people. A childs (part) face in a photo and WW3 breaks out,have you not got anything better to do?[/p][/quote]OK, Just for fun I will play! I love a game ;) "am very well respected" By who,seems a little desperate to me? Jealousy gets you nowhere. "If you cannot see the photo's propaganda" Please enlighten us. This is a bit unfair, you are selling yourself short again, I hate to see you make yourself look silly and have to post it a 10th time :( "I can 100 % guarantee that my child will not be rude enough" No you can't. How do you know I can't. I so can. "I have a right to be here" So does everyone else They do, but people with children involved in the reason we are here, definitely a priority seat, you would have to be second class (no change there then) "I do not think you realise how you look" Touche. Touche x infinity "Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech?" And you can? And you can? (referring to your previous post, will have to start calling you Dory) "but want an apology" For what? Come on, this one is not fair on you? Makes you look silly again! I don't want to cheat. "we are not all like you" Or like you ,thankfully. Or like me, "sadly" :( "I do not support photos being used maliciously" How is it malicious? How is it not? "I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl" I bet you surprise a lot of people. I surprised you. A childs (part) face in a photo and WW3 breaks out,have you not got anything better to do? Yes but I have have the time to choose, besides I like watching you be verbally squashed every time you think you have a good line.[/p][/quote]"am very well respected" By who,seems a little desperate to me? Jealousy gets you nowhere. Facts get you everywhere,you have none except your bloated ego. "If you cannot see the photo's propaganda" Please enlighten us. This is a bit unfair, you are selling yourself short again, I hate to see you make yourself look silly and have to post it a 10th time :( Propaganda for what,you are looking silly again.Yet no facts again! "I have a right to be here" So does everyone else They do, but people with children involved in the reason we are here, definitely a priority seat, you would have to be second class (no change there then) Is your child the one with the face NOT covered by a plate,if not what is your problem then? "Who are you to decide who can have freedom of speech?" And you can? And you can? (referring to your previous post, will have to start calling you Dory) Did i say i decide,you seem to think you have the right to. "but want an apology" For what? Come on, this one is not fair on you? Makes you look silly again! I don't want to cheat. Still not answered though have you.An article about a school uses a photo of children from the said school,and you want an apology...FOR WHAT? "I do not support photos being used maliciously" How is it malicious? How is it not? Def' of malicious is: Having the nature of or resulting from malice; deliberately harmful; spiteful Are you still saying the NS has a vendetta,WHAT IS MALICIOUS ABOUT THE ARTICLE,STILL NO ANSWER,EH! "I surprise myself sometimes, what a clever girl" I bet you surprise a lot of people. I surprised you. How have you surprised me,see your like all the time! A childs (part) face in a photo and WW3 breaks out,have you not got anything better to do? Yes but I have have the time to choose, besides I like watching you be verbally squashed every time you think you have a good line. How have i been verbally squashed by you? It (the article/photo) started out as defamatory, libel and slanderous,went to vindictive and now you say it is lazy and malicious! How about actually answering a question with a fact,not what you think is right or with some quip that you think makes you look cleverer than what you are? It is,and remains a photo of children from a school that an article was written about.It is not false,slanderous,mal icious or any other word you can think of....except TRUE[/p][/quote]Yawn :) Turn the P.C. off and make your way home! Deefea

7:15pm Fri 12 Oct 12

Oldchap says...

Deefea, why do you have to post your comments several times (there's one 5 times) as it makes it annoying having to scroll down an ever increasing list

It's quite OK to post once, multiple posts don't achieve anything
Deefea, why do you have to post your comments several times (there's one 5 times) as it makes it annoying having to scroll down an ever increasing list It's quite OK to post once, multiple posts don't achieve anything Oldchap

8:16pm Fri 12 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

Yawn :) Turn the P.C. off and make your way home!

Again,not a properly thought out argument.Why cannot you reply to a simple question,or do you need help?

Can one of you moaning mums please tell me, WHAT IS LEGALLY WRONG WITH THE WRITTEN ARTICLE?

None of your silly little postings or thoughts have redress in law,and you know it.So you revert to try and wind people up with your 'intelligence'.It must be infuriating to know it is not working,all it is doing is winding yourselves up.
Now skip along,put your precious ones to bed and relax.

Silence is golden,golden!!!!
Yawn :) Turn the P.C. off and make your way home! Again,not a properly thought out argument.Why cannot you reply to a simple question,or do you need help? Can one of you moaning mums please tell me, WHAT IS LEGALLY WRONG WITH THE WRITTEN ARTICLE? None of your silly little postings or thoughts have redress in law,and you know it.So you revert to try and wind people up with your 'intelligence'.It must be infuriating to know it is not working,all it is doing is winding yourselves up. Now skip along,put your precious ones to bed and relax. Silence is golden,golden!!!! lord righteous

10:18am Sat 13 Oct 12

greenwichman says...

Just to inform that the writer who composed this piece is on twitter. He is @mark_chandler
Just to inform that the writer who composed this piece is on twitter. He is @mark_chandler greenwichman

4:16pm Sat 13 Oct 12

Marty1979 says...

Oldchap wrote:
Deefea, why do you have to post your comments several times (there's one 5 times) as it makes it annoying having to scroll down an ever increasing list

It's quite OK to post once, multiple posts don't achieve anything
I suppose like some people feel they need to keep repeating themselves - usually when they are trying to win an argument
[quote][p][bold]Oldchap[/bold] wrote: Deefea, why do you have to post your comments several times (there's one 5 times) as it makes it annoying having to scroll down an ever increasing list It's quite OK to post once, multiple posts don't achieve anything[/p][/quote]I suppose like some people feel they need to keep repeating themselves - usually when they are trying to win an argument Marty1979

4:36pm Sat 13 Oct 12

Marty1979 says...

Now perhaps someone can tell me if I've got it wrong but:-

Ms Wells agreed with the school policy of no mobiles

Her daughter broke the rules & her phone was confiscated

Ms Wells pleaded with the school to return the phone, which they did (and presumably reminded Ms Wells of the rules)

Ms Wells decides the rules apply to everyone except her daughter so allows it to be taken to school in breach of the rules

Phone confiscated again

Ms Wells goes to New Shopper to try to get sympathy


Or have I got something wrong?
Now perhaps someone can tell me if I've got it wrong but:- Ms Wells agreed with the school policy of no mobiles Her daughter broke the rules & her phone was confiscated Ms Wells pleaded with the school to return the phone, which they did (and presumably reminded Ms Wells of the rules) Ms Wells decides the rules apply to everyone except her daughter so allows it to be taken to school in breach of the rules Phone confiscated again Ms Wells goes to New Shopper to try to get sympathy Or have I got something wrong? Marty1979

6:12pm Sat 13 Oct 12

lord righteous says...

Marty1979 wrote:
Now perhaps someone can tell me if I've got it wrong but:-

Ms Wells agreed with the school policy of no mobiles

Her daughter broke the rules & her phone was confiscated

Ms Wells pleaded with the school to return the phone, which they did (and presumably reminded Ms Wells of the rules)

Ms Wells decides the rules apply to everyone except her daughter so allows it to be taken to school in breach of the rules

Phone confiscated again

Ms Wells goes to New Shopper to try to get sympathy


Or have I got something wrong?
No,you are spot on!
The topic has now been hijacked by bored silly mums with nothing better to do.
A photo (no longer visible here but still visible on the online edition) that accompanied the story showed a group of children from the same school at a school production,all but 1 child had a paper plate over their face.
1 or 2 mums are now complaining that the NS and the image are,libelous.slander
ous,malicious,vindic
tive is 'propaganda' (what for?) and 'lazy' in showing this photo and puts their children at risk.
You really could not make it up!
[quote][p][bold]Marty1979[/bold] wrote: Now perhaps someone can tell me if I've got it wrong but:- Ms Wells agreed with the school policy of no mobiles Her daughter broke the rules & her phone was confiscated Ms Wells pleaded with the school to return the phone, which they did (and presumably reminded Ms Wells of the rules) Ms Wells decides the rules apply to everyone except her daughter so allows it to be taken to school in breach of the rules Phone confiscated again Ms Wells goes to New Shopper to try to get sympathy Or have I got something wrong?[/p][/quote]No,you are spot on! The topic has now been hijacked by bored silly mums with nothing better to do. A photo (no longer visible here but still visible on the online edition) that accompanied the story showed a group of children from the same school at a school production,all but 1 child had a paper plate over their face. 1 or 2 mums are now complaining that the NS and the image are,libelous.slander ous,malicious,vindic tive is 'propaganda' (what for?) and 'lazy' in showing this photo and puts their children at risk. You really could not make it up! lord righteous

6:36pm Sat 13 Oct 12

Marty1979 says...

I wondered about the photo - as all the faces were hidden how could children be identified or a risk? A child in the photo could tell his parents "I'm the third from the left" but I defy anyone to tell who is in the photo

Trying to sue the school or NS just sums up the ambulance chasing culture of trying to make a fast buck
I wondered about the photo - as all the faces were hidden how could children be identified or a risk? A child in the photo could tell his parents "I'm the third from the left" but I defy anyone to tell who is in the photo Trying to sue the school or NS just sums up the ambulance chasing culture of trying to make a fast buck Marty1979

1:01pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Deefea says...

I agree with your summary and would like to confirm that one more than one child has been recognised, there were 3 pictures, 2 identifying 4 children in total. Yes it probably will not matter to those who are not the parents of these children, but to have a young child upset at how his image has been used, which would appear to mislead the reader, is not acceptable. If it were a story with an explanation of their efforts, supported by relevant facts, we would not have a right to be irate. I understand there are adverse reactions and of course some people are not affected in the slightest, but as the parents of these children, we do have that right. I personally am not interested in claiming compensation, a righteous battle for the sake of a battle, I would simply like an apology to my child and if NS still wish to post the photograph, it would need to be with regard to the children's ceremony and not depicted as though they are affiliated with racist groups. Not one person that has seen that photograph has suggested anything other than it representing GFS as a type of cult school, with obeying children. In doing this, the PCC's code of conduct has been breached. If I am wrong and this is proven to be a legitimate story with a photo that should be used if NS so wish, then I will of course need to reassess the situation and ensure that my son's photo can not be used at all in the future, for GFS. Which is a shame, as the school is doing such positive things, it will benefit from good publicity. Until then, I will happily take constructive criticism. What I find annoying is the way bloggers on here seem to be out to prove themselves superior, which would be fine if they had a relevant interest other than to just want to argue and find flaws in grammar. It is what it is I am afraid and I have been hard pushed to find anyone with a view that thinks the front page last week is acceptable.
I agree with your summary and would like to confirm that one more than one child has been recognised, there were 3 pictures, 2 identifying 4 children in total. Yes it probably will not matter to those who are not the parents of these children, but to have a young child upset at how his image has been used, which would appear to mislead the reader, is not acceptable. If it were a story with an explanation of their efforts, supported by relevant facts, we would not have a right to be irate. I understand there are adverse reactions and of course some people are not affected in the slightest, but as the parents of these children, we do have that right. I personally am not interested in claiming compensation, a righteous battle for the sake of a battle, I would simply like an apology to my child and if NS still wish to post the photograph, it would need to be with regard to the children's ceremony and not depicted as though they are affiliated with racist groups. Not one person that has seen that photograph has suggested anything other than it representing GFS as a type of cult school, with obeying children. In doing this, the PCC's code of conduct has been breached. If I am wrong and this is proven to be a legitimate story with a photo that should be used if NS so wish, then I will of course need to reassess the situation and ensure that my son's photo can not be used at all in the future, for GFS. Which is a shame, as the school is doing such positive things, it will benefit from good publicity. Until then, I will happily take constructive criticism. What I find annoying is the way bloggers on here seem to be out to prove themselves superior, which would be fine if they had a relevant interest other than to just want to argue and find flaws in grammar. It is what it is I am afraid and I have been hard pushed to find anyone with a view that thinks the front page last week is acceptable. Deefea

1:05pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Deefea says...

Marty1979 wrote:
Oldchap wrote:
Deefea, why do you have to post your comments several times (there's one 5 times) as it makes it annoying having to scroll down an ever increasing list

It's quite OK to post once, multiple posts don't achieve anything
I suppose like some people feel they need to keep repeating themselves - usually when they are trying to win an argument
Apologies, it was not intentional! I have seen a few of my posts duplicated and yes, slightly annoying.
[quote][p][bold]Marty1979[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oldchap[/bold] wrote: Deefea, why do you have to post your comments several times (there's one 5 times) as it makes it annoying having to scroll down an ever increasing list It's quite OK to post once, multiple posts don't achieve anything[/p][/quote]I suppose like some people feel they need to keep repeating themselves - usually when they are trying to win an argument[/p][/quote]Apologies, it was not intentional! I have seen a few of my posts duplicated and yes, slightly annoying. Deefea

1:07pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Deefea says...

Gypo.Joe wrote:
Deefa you have more sh1t than a Christmas goose.

FFS give it a rest madam.
Nice!
[quote][p][bold]Gypo.Joe[/bold] wrote: Deefa you have more sh1t than a Christmas goose. FFS give it a rest madam.[/p][/quote]Nice! Deefea

1:19pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Deefea says...

lord righteous wrote:
Yawn :) Turn the P.C. off and make your way home!

Again,not a properly thought out argument.Why cannot you reply to a simple question,or do you need help?

Can one of you moaning mums please tell me, WHAT IS LEGALLY WRONG WITH THE WRITTEN ARTICLE?

None of your silly little postings or thoughts have redress in law,and you know it.So you revert to try and wind people up with your 'intelligence'.It must be infuriating to know it is not working,all it is doing is winding yourselves up.
Now skip along,put your precious ones to bed and relax.

Silence is golden,golden!!!!
The written article, along with the photograph of Mrs Wells & her daughter is fine I expect. Adding a photograph of other children who attend the same school to support her idea of the school being a "Prison Camp", and it is only her view, not fact, is not acceptable. Lets agree that the photograph was not explained as anything other than "a ceremony for new children", and that in itself could suggest support of initiation if interpreted that way? It is only fair that we try to protect our children as much as possible and to post that photograph in such a way, where children have been identified locally, is leaving them vulnerable. As a parent, which you may or may not be already, I would hope you would want to protect your child from vindication as much as possible? Inaccurate or deliberately misleading information is just not on, not when the potential could affect a child.
[quote][p][bold]lord righteous[/bold] wrote: Yawn :) Turn the P.C. off and make your way home! Again,not a properly thought out argument.Why cannot you reply to a simple question,or do you need help? Can one of you moaning mums please tell me, WHAT IS LEGALLY WRONG WITH THE WRITTEN ARTICLE? None of your silly little postings or thoughts have redress in law,and you know it.So you revert to try and wind people up with your 'intelligence'.It must be infuriating to know it is not working,all it is doing is winding yourselves up. Now skip along,put your precious ones to bed and relax. Silence is golden,golden!!!![/p][/quote]The written article, along with the photograph of Mrs Wells & her daughter is fine I expect. Adding a photograph of other children who attend the same school to support her idea of the school being a "Prison Camp", and it is only her view, not fact, is not acceptable. Lets agree that the photograph was not explained as anything other than "a ceremony for new children", and that in itself could suggest support of initiation if interpreted that way? It is only fair that we try to protect our children as much as possible and to post that photograph in such a way, where children have been identified locally, is leaving them vulnerable. As a parent, which you may or may not be already, I would hope you would want to protect your child from vindication as much as possible? Inaccurate or deliberately misleading information is just not on, not when the potential could affect a child. Deefea

1:26pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Marty1979 says...

So it's a drama school?
So it's a drama school? Marty1979

2:55pm Sun 14 Oct 12

bizzylizzy2318 says...

My daughter goes to this school,this version of events that this mother and daughter told is not the truth because there were students as witnesses, before this even come out in the newspaper,for a start there was NO PATTING DOWN OF UNIFORM THEY WERE TOLD TO REMOVE THEIR BLAZER PLUS THERE WERE AT LEAST 3 DIFFERENT TEACHERS PRESENT (WOMEN TEACHERS I MIGHT ADD) while these searches were done not just on this paticular student,if you don't like the rules don't send your child there as you have to sign an agreement about the mobile phone policy,THIS IS A FANTASTIC SCHOOL AND DON'T LET DRAMA QUEENS PUT YOU OFF!!
My daughter goes to this school,this version of events that this mother and daughter told is not the truth because there were students as witnesses, before this even come out in the newspaper,for a start there was NO PATTING DOWN OF UNIFORM THEY WERE TOLD TO REMOVE THEIR BLAZER PLUS THERE WERE AT LEAST 3 DIFFERENT TEACHERS PRESENT (WOMEN TEACHERS I MIGHT ADD) while these searches were done not just on this paticular student,if you don't like the rules don't send your child there as you have to sign an agreement about the mobile phone policy,THIS IS A FANTASTIC SCHOOL AND DON'T LET DRAMA QUEENS PUT YOU OFF!! bizzylizzy2318

3:42pm Sun 14 Oct 12

yummymummy_89 says...

Well I think its SO unfair theres no way my princess would go to school without her phone so Im lucky she goes to a SENSIBLE school not one like this

And I think her mum is right to complain if a teacher searched my princess Id go strayt to the police as hes probably a peedofile
Well I think its SO unfair theres no way my princess would go to school without her phone so Im lucky she goes to a SENSIBLE school not one like this And I think her mum is right to complain if a teacher searched my princess Id go strayt to the police as hes probably a peedofile yummymummy_89

4:02pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Marty1979 says...

bizzylizzy2318 wrote:
My daughter goes to this school,this version of events that this mother and daughter told is not the truth because there were students as witnesses, before this even come out in the newspaper,for a start there was NO PATTING DOWN OF UNIFORM THEY WERE TOLD TO REMOVE THEIR BLAZER PLUS THERE WERE AT LEAST 3 DIFFERENT TEACHERS PRESENT (WOMEN TEACHERS I MIGHT ADD) while these searches were done not just on this paticular student,if you don't like the rules don't send your child there as you have to sign an agreement about the mobile phone policy,THIS IS A FANTASTIC SCHOOL AND DON'T LET DRAMA QUEENS PUT YOU OFF!!
So now the truth starts to emerge - the "allegations" from some people suggested the girl was subject to a full body search!
Telling her to remove her blazer is completely different - and there would have been no contact
[quote][p][bold]bizzylizzy2318[/bold] wrote: My daughter goes to this school,this version of events that this mother and daughter told is not the truth because there were students as witnesses, before this even come out in the newspaper,for a start there was NO PATTING DOWN OF UNIFORM THEY WERE TOLD TO REMOVE THEIR BLAZER PLUS THERE WERE AT LEAST 3 DIFFERENT TEACHERS PRESENT (WOMEN TEACHERS I MIGHT ADD) while these searches were done not just on this paticular student,if you don't like the rules don't send your child there as you have to sign an agreement about the mobile phone policy,THIS IS A FANTASTIC SCHOOL AND DON'T LET DRAMA QUEENS PUT YOU OFF!![/p][/quote]So now the truth starts to emerge - the "allegations" from some people suggested the girl was subject to a full body search! Telling her to remove her blazer is completely different - and there would have been no contact Marty1979

5:01pm Sun 14 Oct 12

bizzylizzy2318 says...

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT MY DAUGHTER CAME HOME AND CONFIRMED BEFORE THIS WHOLE UNTRUTHFUL DRAMA EMERGED IN THIS WAY,MY DAUGHTER IS ONE OF THE MANY WITNESSES TO THIS INCIDENT. WHO IS THIS PERSON TO CALL A GROUP OF INNOCENT WITNESSES (THE CHILDREN) LIARS. ALL THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS IS THAT THIS PARTICULAR PUPIL IS NOT TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH. SHE CONVENIENTLY FORGOT TO MENTION THAT HER CHILD WAS VERBALLY ABUSING STAFF. SO THIS IS A LESSON TO PARENTS NOT TO TAKE ACTIONS BEFORE KNOWING THE TRUTH AND FACTS OF SITUATION OR SUPPOSED INCIDENTS. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT MY DAUGHTER CAME HOME AND CONFIRMED BEFORE THIS WHOLE UNTRUTHFUL DRAMA EMERGED IN THIS WAY,MY DAUGHTER IS ONE OF THE MANY WITNESSES TO THIS INCIDENT. WHO IS THIS PERSON TO CALL A GROUP OF INNOCENT WITNESSES (THE CHILDREN) LIARS. ALL THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS IS THAT THIS PARTICULAR PUPIL IS NOT TELLING THE WHOLE TRUTH. SHE CONVENIENTLY FORGOT TO MENTION THAT HER CHILD WAS VERBALLY ABUSING STAFF. SO THIS IS A LESSON TO PARENTS NOT TO TAKE ACTIONS BEFORE KNOWING THE TRUTH AND FACTS OF SITUATION OR SUPPOSED INCIDENTS. GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT. bizzylizzy2318

5:04pm Sun 14 Oct 12

bizzylizzy2318 says...

yummymummy_89 wrote:
Well I think its SO unfair theres no way my princess would go to school without her phone so Im lucky she goes to a SENSIBLE school not one like this

And I think her mum is right to complain if a teacher searched my princess Id go strayt to the police as hes probably a peedofile
I THINK PEOPLE NEED TO GET THEIR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE MAKING COMMENTS AND ACCUSATIONS AS SERIOUS AS THIS. MY CHILD AS A WITNESS SAW THERE WERE WOMAN TEACHER PRESENT AND SHE WAS NOT PATTED DOWN SHE WAS TOLD TO REMOVE HER BLAZER JUST AS OTHER CHILDREN WERE ASKED ASWELL.
[quote][p][bold]yummymummy_89[/bold] wrote: Well I think its SO unfair theres no way my princess would go to school without her phone so Im lucky she goes to a SENSIBLE school not one like this And I think her mum is right to complain if a teacher searched my princess Id go strayt to the police as hes probably a peedofile[/p][/quote]I THINK PEOPLE NEED TO GET THEIR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE MAKING COMMENTS AND ACCUSATIONS AS SERIOUS AS THIS. MY CHILD AS A WITNESS SAW THERE WERE WOMAN TEACHER PRESENT AND SHE WAS NOT PATTED DOWN SHE WAS TOLD TO REMOVE HER BLAZER JUST AS OTHER CHILDREN WERE ASKED ASWELL. bizzylizzy2318

5:11pm Sun 14 Oct 12

bizzylizzy2318 says...

Marty1979 wrote:
Now perhaps someone can tell me if I've got it wrong but:-

Ms Wells agreed with the school policy of no mobiles

Her daughter broke the rules & her phone was confiscated

Ms Wells pleaded with the school to return the phone, which they did (and presumably reminded Ms Wells of the rules)

Ms Wells decides the rules apply to everyone except her daughter so allows it to be taken to school in breach of the rules

Phone confiscated again

Ms Wells goes to New Shopper to try to get sympathy


Or have I got something wrong?
HERE HERE!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Marty1979[/bold] wrote: Now perhaps someone can tell me if I've got it wrong but:- Ms Wells agreed with the school policy of no mobiles Her daughter broke the rules & her phone was confiscated Ms Wells pleaded with the school to return the phone, which they did (and presumably reminded Ms Wells of the rules) Ms Wells decides the rules apply to everyone except her daughter so allows it to be taken to school in breach of the rules Phone confiscated again Ms Wells goes to New Shopper to try to get sympathy Or have I got something wrong?[/p][/quote]HERE HERE!!!! bizzylizzy2318

5:37pm Sun 14 Oct 12

bizzylizzy2318 says...

simplystace wrote:
i don't agree with the idea of a male teacher patting down a female pupil if this happened BUT i agree that if the rules on mobile phones was outlined when the parent and child signed up to the school then I'm afraid they don't really have anything to complain about as they must have agreed to these rules in order to be accepted into the school, whats wrong with leaving her mobile in her locker? sounds like she'd be better off in a more lenient school.
THE MALE TEACHER WAS "ACCUSED" OF PATTING THE PUPIL DOWN THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THIS HAPPENED ON THE CONTRARY, THE EVIDENCE FROM FIRST HAND WITNESSES TELLS MYSELF AND MANY OTHERS THAT THIS WAS A TOTAL FABRICATION BECAUSE A PUPIL AND PARENT DIDN'T WANT TO ADHERE TO THE POLICY OF NO MOBILE PHONES. THEY DON'T HAVE LOCKERS AT PRESENT SO IT IS WISE TO LEAVE MOBILES AT HOME. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE POLICY DON'T SIGN SOMETHING THAT CLEARLY UNDERLINES NO MOBILE PHONES AND DON'T SEND YOUR CHILD TO THAT SCHOOL.
[quote][p][bold]simplystace[/bold] wrote: i don't agree with the idea of a male teacher patting down a female pupil if this happened BUT i agree that if the rules on mobile phones was outlined when the parent and child signed up to the school then I'm afraid they don't really have anything to complain about as they must have agreed to these rules in order to be accepted into the school, whats wrong with leaving her mobile in her locker? sounds like she'd be better off in a more lenient school.[/p][/quote]THE MALE TEACHER WAS "ACCUSED" OF PATTING THE PUPIL DOWN THERE IS NO OTHER EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THIS HAPPENED ON THE CONTRARY, THE EVIDENCE FROM FIRST HAND WITNESSES TELLS MYSELF AND MANY OTHERS THAT THIS WAS A TOTAL FABRICATION BECAUSE A PUPIL AND PARENT DIDN'T WANT TO ADHERE TO THE POLICY OF NO MOBILE PHONES. THEY DON'T HAVE LOCKERS AT PRESENT SO IT IS WISE TO LEAVE MOBILES AT HOME. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE POLICY DON'T SIGN SOMETHING THAT CLEARLY UNDERLINES NO MOBILE PHONES AND DON'T SEND YOUR CHILD TO THAT SCHOOL. bizzylizzy2318

6:38pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Oldchap says...

So actually the male teacher could be entitled to take action himself - unfounded accusations could damage his career
So actually the male teacher could be entitled to take action himself - unfounded accusations could damage his career Oldchap

8:09pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Marty1979 says...

Oldchap wrote:
So actually the male teacher could be entitled to take action himself - unfounded accusations could damage his career
So we can anticipate Ms Wells in court charged with defamation of character?
[quote][p][bold]Oldchap[/bold] wrote: So actually the male teacher could be entitled to take action himself - unfounded accusations could damage his career[/p][/quote]So we can anticipate Ms Wells in court charged with defamation of character? Marty1979

9:43pm Sun 14 Oct 12

Guess who ;) AGAIN ! says...

Well if she does end up in court she will end up with a face even more like a smacked Rse.
Well if she does end up in court she will end up with a face even more like a smacked Rse. Guess who ;) AGAIN !

9:56pm Sun 14 Oct 12

bizzylizzy2318 says...

Now Now he, he LOL!!
Now Now he, he LOL!! bizzylizzy2318

11:57am Mon 15 Oct 12

1985charlotte says...

My niece attends this school and when they were first filling out forms there was a clear policy that students and parents had to sign regarding mobile phones.

i since heard that this girls mobile phone went off in an assembly, and that she was caught with it not only once but 3 times, clearly breaking school rules.
My niece attends this school and when they were first filling out forms there was a clear policy that students and parents had to sign regarding mobile phones. i since heard that this girls mobile phone went off in an assembly, and that she was caught with it not only once but 3 times, clearly breaking school rules. 1985charlotte

3:26pm Mon 15 Oct 12

reasonable75 says...

I actually feel sorry for Britney Staples - her mother, seeking publicity, has now subjected her to ridicule

Why does Ms Wells feel that she (ie her daughter) should be exempt from the rule that she, as mother, agreed to?
I actually feel sorry for Britney Staples - her mother, seeking publicity, has now subjected her to ridicule Why does Ms Wells feel that she (ie her daughter) should be exempt from the rule that she, as mother, agreed to? reasonable75

6:00pm Mon 15 Oct 12

BigG says...

If these are such stringant rules then why not have a system where the kids can hand them in and collect after school. Thats what my son use to do. I understand that for safety and peace of mind for parents these days they want to know where their children are after school. Well most good parents. There is no requirement for your phone whilst in school so hand it in, But holding it till the end of term is a bit extreme. If you get caught using it in school then expect it to be taken but till the end of the day.
If these are such stringant rules then why not have a system where the kids can hand them in and collect after school. Thats what my son use to do. I understand that for safety and peace of mind for parents these days they want to know where their children are after school. Well most good parents. There is no requirement for your phone whilst in school so hand it in, But holding it till the end of term is a bit extreme. If you get caught using it in school then expect it to be taken but till the end of the day. BigG

6:39pm Mon 15 Oct 12

Invicta58 says...

yummymummy_89 wrote:
Well I think its SO unfair theres no way my princess would go to school without her phone so Im lucky she goes to a SENSIBLE school not one like this And I think her mum is right to complain if a teacher searched my princess Id go strayt to the police as hes probably a peedofile
That's strange. No so long ago you were here bleating with the NIMBYs objecting to mobile masts because you didn't want your little princess to get cancer from them. Remember the story about the mast at Orpington Fire Station?

Now they're essential for your daugher to get to school?

Make your mind up.
[quote][p][bold]yummymummy_89[/bold] wrote: Well I think its SO unfair theres no way my princess would go to school without her phone so Im lucky she goes to a SENSIBLE school not one like this And I think her mum is right to complain if a teacher searched my princess Id go strayt to the police as hes probably a peedofile[/p][/quote]That's strange. No so long ago you were here bleating with the NIMBYs objecting to mobile masts because you didn't want your little princess to get cancer from them. Remember the story about the mast at Orpington Fire Station? Now they're essential for your daugher to get to school? Make your mind up. Invicta58

7:07pm Mon 15 Oct 12

bizzylizzy2318 says...

Rightly so and i wouldn't blame him,he worked hard to get where he is in his career, unfounded, stupid and wreck less accusations by drama queens, just because they think the rules don't apply to them over a mobile phone, SERIOUSLY PEOPLE LIKE THIS NEED TO GET A GRIP! (what example is the mother setting her children?) My daughter is one of many witnesses,need i say any more????
Rightly so and i wouldn't blame him,he worked hard to get where he is in his career, unfounded, stupid and wreck less accusations by drama queens, just because they think the rules don't apply to them over a mobile phone, SERIOUSLY PEOPLE LIKE THIS NEED TO GET A GRIP! (what example is the mother setting her children?) My daughter is one of many witnesses,need i say any more???? bizzylizzy2318

7:49pm Mon 15 Oct 12

bizzylizzy2318 says...

As well as breaking the mobile phone rule amongst other things, my daughter also told me in the FIRST WEEK the pupil in question was wearing layers of make up which i might add is another of the rules BROKEN by this pupil also her mother allowing her too,how can you expect children to follow rules if their parent(s)don't!! (1)MOBILE PHONE bought to school numerous times after the parent accepts school place and signs mobile phone policy her mum throws the rattle out of pram!! (2)LIES TO LOCAL PAPER(with holds info what ever) ABOUT ALLEGED PATTING DOWN(which EVIDENCE SAYS OTHERWISE)(3)AND NO WOMEN TEACHERS PRESENT WHEN THERE CLEARLY WERE (4) ALSO SHE WASN'T THEY ONLY PUPIL SUBJECT TO THESE SEARCHES (5)BLAZER WAS ASKED TO BE REMOVED TO BE SEARCHED(6)PUPIL SCREAMING AT TEACHERS(very disrespectful)(7)LAY
ERS OF MAKE UP WORN(11yrs old need i say more)ANOTHER OF THE RULES BROKEN,your supposed to set an example for your child not ENCOURAGE them to break rules when their older and you try an set boundaries they DON'T OR WONT LISTEN!! What do you expect
As well as breaking the mobile phone rule amongst other things, my daughter also told me in the FIRST WEEK the pupil in question was wearing layers of make up which i might add is another of the rules BROKEN by this pupil also her mother allowing her too,how can you expect children to follow rules if their parent(s)don't!! (1)MOBILE PHONE bought to school numerous times after the parent accepts school place and signs mobile phone policy her mum throws the rattle out of pram!! (2)LIES TO LOCAL PAPER(with holds info what ever) ABOUT ALLEGED PATTING DOWN(which EVIDENCE SAYS OTHERWISE)(3)AND NO WOMEN TEACHERS PRESENT WHEN THERE CLEARLY WERE (4) ALSO SHE WASN'T THEY ONLY PUPIL SUBJECT TO THESE SEARCHES (5)BLAZER WAS ASKED TO BE REMOVED TO BE SEARCHED(6)PUPIL SCREAMING AT TEACHERS(very disrespectful)(7)LAY ERS OF MAKE UP WORN(11yrs old need i say more)ANOTHER OF THE RULES BROKEN,your supposed to set an example for your child not ENCOURAGE them to break rules when their older and you try an set boundaries they DON'T OR WONT LISTEN!! What do you expect bizzylizzy2318

8:25pm Mon 15 Oct 12

cjohnsonse10 says...

Maybe Ms Wells should enroll in GFS with her daughter, as she obviously does not possess the ability to read an agreement.

That way she would get the benefit of a better education and could even walk her child home - minus the mobile.

Another fantastic example of journalism by the News Shopper...

:-)
Maybe Ms Wells should enroll in GFS with her daughter, as she obviously does not possess the ability to read an agreement. That way she would get the benefit of a better education and could even walk her child home - minus the mobile. Another fantastic example of journalism by the News Shopper... :-) cjohnsonse10

9:11pm Mon 15 Oct 12

Marty1979 says...

bizzylizzy2318 wrote:
As well as breaking the mobile phone rule amongst other things, my daughter also told me in the FIRST WEEK the pupil in question was wearing layers of make up which i might add is another of the rules BROKEN by this pupil also her mother allowing her too,how can you expect children to follow rules if their parent(s)don't!! (1)MOBILE PHONE bought to school numerous times after the parent accepts school place and signs mobile phone policy her mum throws the rattle out of pram!! (2)LIES TO LOCAL PAPER(with holds info what ever) ABOUT ALLEGED PATTING DOWN(which EVIDENCE SAYS OTHERWISE)(3)AND NO WOMEN TEACHERS PRESENT WHEN THERE CLEARLY WERE (4) ALSO SHE WASN'T THEY ONLY PUPIL SUBJECT TO THESE SEARCHES (5)BLAZER WAS ASKED TO BE REMOVED TO BE SEARCHED(6)PUPIL SCREAMING AT TEACHERS(very disrespectful)(7)LAY

ERS OF MAKE UP WORN(11yrs old need i say more)ANOTHER OF THE RULES BROKEN,your supposed to set an example for your child not ENCOURAGE them to break rules when their older and you try an set boundaries they DON'T OR WONT LISTEN!! What do you expect
sounds like a proper little madam - no doubt encouraged by her mother
[quote][p][bold]bizzylizzy2318[/bold] wrote: As well as breaking the mobile phone rule amongst other things, my daughter also told me in the FIRST WEEK the pupil in question was wearing layers of make up which i might add is another of the rules BROKEN by this pupil also her mother allowing her too,how can you expect children to follow rules if their parent(s)don't!! (1)MOBILE PHONE bought to school numerous times after the parent accepts school place and signs mobile phone policy her mum throws the rattle out of pram!! (2)LIES TO LOCAL PAPER(with holds info what ever) ABOUT ALLEGED PATTING DOWN(which EVIDENCE SAYS OTHERWISE)(3)AND NO WOMEN TEACHERS PRESENT WHEN THERE CLEARLY WERE (4) ALSO SHE WASN'T THEY ONLY PUPIL SUBJECT TO THESE SEARCHES (5)BLAZER WAS ASKED TO BE REMOVED TO BE SEARCHED(6)PUPIL SCREAMING AT TEACHERS(very disrespectful)(7)LAY ERS OF MAKE UP WORN(11yrs old need i say more)ANOTHER OF THE RULES BROKEN,your supposed to set an example for your child not ENCOURAGE them to break rules when their older and you try an set boundaries they DON'T OR WONT LISTEN!! What do you expect[/p][/quote]sounds like a proper little madam - no doubt encouraged by her mother Marty1979

8:33am Tue 16 Oct 12

Gavinp says...

Its a shame mobile phone blockers are still illegal.............
...I think.

All schools and public places should have them.

My step daughter has a phone but is under strict instructions when and when not to use it.

She also has a very crappy one tbh lol that does everything it needs but if some one tried to attack/mug her for it they would probably hand it back.

I feel there is no need for them. My step daughters mum rings her to make sure shes safe? But then if she answered the phone in the wrong place at the wrong time there could be a possible situation.

Also why is the child coming home at 6PM? Does the school have long hours as im not familiar with the mentioned school.

One to add is that its the parents responsibilty to help enforce the school rules which they are all aware of.
Its a shame mobile phone blockers are still illegal............. ...I think. All schools and public places should have them. My step daughter has a phone but is under strict instructions when and when not to use it. She also has a very crappy one tbh lol that does everything it needs but if some one tried to attack/mug her for it they would probably hand it back. I feel there is no need for them. My step daughters mum rings her to make sure shes safe? But then if she answered the phone in the wrong place at the wrong time there could be a possible situation. Also why is the child coming home at 6PM? Does the school have long hours as im not familiar with the mentioned school. One to add is that its the parents responsibilty to help enforce the school rules which they are all aware of. Gavinp

11:22am Tue 16 Oct 12

reasonable75 says...

There was an earlier comment that the school may be supplying lockers - but I doubt this girl would use one even if available. And "Greenwich Free School home time is 17.30 on Tues, Weds, Thurs"



Also noticed:-

"This young lady is already well known to parents and students of GFS as a school non-attender , which she already was before she came to GFS . She wont be missed as she consistently disrupts the learning environment and has even had family members threatening students outside the school gates"

DaphneR said "I have a friend who is very senior with one of the national papers so I am seeking advice from him" Haven't seen anything so presumably they just laughed.

Deefea intended to contact Watchdog. Well I hope if they even bothered with the story they take the time to estabilsh the truth & not just the wild unfounded allegations

Deefea also said she was adding a Facebook group "Parents of GFS fight against Newsshopper" What for her & DaphneR?
There was an earlier comment that the school may be supplying lockers - but I doubt this girl would use one even if available. And "Greenwich Free School home time is 17.30 on Tues, Weds, Thurs" Also noticed:- "This young lady is already well known to parents and students of GFS as a school non-attender , which she already was before she came to GFS . She wont be missed as she consistently disrupts the learning environment and has even had family members threatening students outside the school gates" DaphneR said "I have a friend who is very senior with one of the national papers so I am seeking advice from him" Haven't seen anything so presumably they just laughed. Deefea intended to contact Watchdog. Well I hope if they even bothered with the story they take the time to estabilsh the truth & not just the wild unfounded allegations Deefea also said she was adding a Facebook group "Parents of GFS fight against Newsshopper" What for her & DaphneR? reasonable75

1:53pm Tue 16 Oct 12

DaphneR says...

No, they didn't laugh, I just don't want to be involved in this conversation any more. It's all got a bit bitchy for my tastes.
No, they didn't laugh, I just don't want to be involved in this conversation any more. It's all got a bit bitchy for my tastes. DaphneR

7:21pm Tue 16 Oct 12

Oldchap says...

DaphneR wrote:
No, they didn't laugh, I just don't want to be involved in this conversation any more. It's all got a bit bitchy for my tastes.
Please enlighten us - as they didn't laugh it will presumably be on the front page so let me know which one and I'll make sure I buy a copy. But if they use a picture tell your friend who is "very senior" to make sure he gets permission first

And "I just don't want to be involved in this conversation any more"

Reworded - I am losing the arguement and I'm not going to play any more
[quote][p][bold]DaphneR[/bold] wrote: No, they didn't laugh, I just don't want to be involved in this conversation any more. It's all got a bit bitchy for my tastes.[/p][/quote]Please enlighten us - as they didn't laugh it will presumably be on the front page so let me know which one and I'll make sure I buy a copy. But if they use a picture tell your friend who is "very senior" to make sure he gets permission first And "I just don't want to be involved in this conversation any more" Reworded - I am losing the arguement and I'm not going to play any more Oldchap

5:22pm Wed 17 Oct 12

SELONDON85 says...

suggest you have a look at this the school are well within their rights to search this young lady (http://www.legislat
ion.gov.uk/ukpga/201
1/21/section/2/enact
ed) although they messed up a bit letting a male search with no female teacher present.. if that is what happened. As for geting home at 6 if you choose to send your child to a school that has compulsary extended school hours than that is your choice that she gets home at that time. As for shooters hill road it is busy at all times of day especially at 6pm when there is major traffic there so if anything was to happened it would be witnessed by loads of people.. dont think robbers are that brave if they are they must be stupid too.
suggest you have a look at this the school are well within their rights to search this young lady (http://www.legislat ion.gov.uk/ukpga/201 1/21/section/2/enact ed) although they messed up a bit letting a male search with no female teacher present.. if that is what happened. As for geting home at 6 if you choose to send your child to a school that has compulsary extended school hours than that is your choice that she gets home at that time. As for shooters hill road it is busy at all times of day especially at 6pm when there is major traffic there so if anything was to happened it would be witnessed by loads of people.. dont think robbers are that brave if they are they must be stupid too. SELONDON85

12:19pm Thu 18 Oct 12

london1234 says...

Apparently I hear from a few of the other gfs pupils that this girl is quite a gobby little character. She doesn't listen to the teachers & is very rude to them. Gfs do not need children in there school who are like this. I just hope she does not come back to the gfs school cause she is giving the school a bad reputation.
Apparently I hear from a few of the other gfs pupils that this girl is quite a gobby little character. She doesn't listen to the teachers & is very rude to them. Gfs do not need children in there school who are like this. I just hope she does not come back to the gfs school cause she is giving the school a bad reputation. london1234

12:24pm Thu 18 Oct 12

london1234 says...

GFS ROCKS & so do the teachers. Its a brilliant school & my child loves it. Well done to all the teachers for the excellent work they are doing with our children & I am 100% behind gfs & supporting them all the way :)
GFS ROCKS & so do the teachers. Its a brilliant school & my child loves it. Well done to all the teachers for the excellent work they are doing with our children & I am 100% behind gfs & supporting them all the way :) london1234

12:33pm Thu 18 Oct 12

bizzylizzy2318 says...

london1234 wrote:
GFS ROCKS & so do the teachers. Its a brilliant school & my child loves it. Well done to all the teachers for the excellent work they are doing with our children & I am 100% behind gfs & supporting them all the way :)
WITH YOU ALL THE WAY!!!!
[quote][p][bold]london1234[/bold] wrote: GFS ROCKS & so do the teachers. Its a brilliant school & my child loves it. Well done to all the teachers for the excellent work they are doing with our children & I am 100% behind gfs & supporting them all the way :)[/p][/quote]WITH YOU ALL THE WAY!!!! bizzylizzy2318

1:55pm Thu 18 Oct 12

maori8 says...

GFS is a great a school the rules are strict but fair and all parents and children knew them before excepting the school in the first place so to have someone say well thats a stupid rule and send there kid in with a phone in the hope that they dont get caught and then moan about when they are just dosnt make sense to me.. and in NO way was she patted down by a lone male teacher did NS even check the facts of this case ???

Tell me another school where the head greats the kids every morning at the gates even stopping traffic for them to cross the road and every teacher knows every single child there not only there names but where there lacking in understanding the course work.

I am VERY happy my kids go to GFS they have come alone way in a short time with understanding the diffrent classes and this is soley down to how the teachers work with them..

Thank You staff of GFS

one happy parent here
GFS is a great a school the rules are strict but fair and all parents and children knew them before excepting the school in the first place so to have someone say well thats a stupid rule and send there kid in with a phone in the hope that they dont get caught and then moan about when they are just dosnt make sense to me.. and in NO way was she patted down by a lone male teacher did NS even check the facts of this case ??? Tell me another school where the head greats the kids every morning at the gates even stopping traffic for them to cross the road and every teacher knows every single child there not only there names but where there lacking in understanding the course work. I am VERY happy my kids go to GFS they have come alone way in a short time with understanding the diffrent classes and this is soley down to how the teachers work with them.. Thank You staff of GFS one happy parent here maori8

2:46pm Thu 18 Oct 12

bizzylizzy2318 says...

maori8 wrote:
GFS is a great a school the rules are strict but fair and all parents and children knew them before excepting the school in the first place so to have someone say well thats a stupid rule and send there kid in with a phone in the hope that they dont get caught and then moan about when they are just dosnt make sense to me.. and in NO way was she patted down by a lone male teacher did NS even check the facts of this case ???

Tell me another school where the head greats the kids every morning at the gates even stopping traffic for them to cross the road and every teacher knows every single child there not only there names but where there lacking in understanding the course work.

I am VERY happy my kids go to GFS they have come alone way in a short time with understanding the diffrent classes and this is soley down to how the teachers work with them..

Thank You staff of GFS

one happy parent here
Couldn't of put it better myself,the teachers have excelled themselves because as you said the pupils have come a long way in a very short time.
THANKS TO ALL THE TEACHERS AND STAFF AT GFS FOR THEIR HARD WORK SO FAR.
[quote][p][bold]maori8[/bold] wrote: GFS is a great a school the rules are strict but fair and all parents and children knew them before excepting the school in the first place so to have someone say well thats a stupid rule and send there kid in with a phone in the hope that they dont get caught and then moan about when they are just dosnt make sense to me.. and in NO way was she patted down by a lone male teacher did NS even check the facts of this case ??? Tell me another school where the head greats the kids every morning at the gates even stopping traffic for them to cross the road and every teacher knows every single child there not only there names but where there lacking in understanding the course work. I am VERY happy my kids go to GFS they have come alone way in a short time with understanding the diffrent classes and this is soley down to how the teachers work with them.. Thank You staff of GFS one happy parent here[/p][/quote]Couldn't of put it better myself,the teachers have excelled themselves because as you said the pupils have come a long way in a very short time. THANKS TO ALL THE TEACHERS AND STAFF AT GFS FOR THEIR HARD WORK SO FAR. bizzylizzy2318

3:55pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Deefea says...

reasonable75 wrote:
There was an earlier comment that the school may be supplying lockers - but I doubt this girl would use one even if available. And "Greenwich Free School home time is 17.30 on Tues, Weds, Thurs"



Also noticed:-

"This young lady is already well known to parents and students of GFS as a school non-attender , which she already was before she came to GFS . She wont be missed as she consistently disrupts the learning environment and has even had family members threatening students outside the school gates"

DaphneR said "I have a friend who is very senior with one of the national papers so I am seeking advice from him" Haven't seen anything so presumably they just laughed.

Deefea intended to contact Watchdog. Well I hope if they even bothered with the story they take the time to estabilsh the truth & not just the wild unfounded allegations

Deefea also said she was adding a Facebook group "Parents of GFS fight against Newsshopper" What for her & DaphneR?
Very sad when you have people clinging on for attention. You missed the boat, most of the relentless efforts to ridicule and humiliate were carried out a lot further up the page. If yours had any substance, I would bother to answer. The only thing that makes me really giggle, is whilst Daphne and I were trying to communicate, one of your loyal buddies (must be a speedy typist) jumped onto facebook, excitedly, and came back to post on it within about 5 seconds, presumably to see faces (apparently he has seen my type before, I doubt it mate, you don't seem the kind of thing that would interest me). Since we have ways to communicate, which are now not open to stalkers, we can laugh about the embarrassing way in which people on here who actually have no involvement with the story, nor any real positive impact on anyone, get excited over such things. It is highly amusing that us parents can rant all day when it involves our children; Whats your excuse? I do hope you find something better to do with all your lives than relentlessly read and comment, for the sake of commenting. You probably won't see us parents on here again, unless of course the apology does come, which we would hope for really. If not, enjoy yourselves on here day after day. I can imagine you will fulfil your next week, picking out grammar errors, accidental typos and trying to sum people up by their writing. I soooo envy you all and wish I could join you in your exciting group :(
[quote][p][bold]reasonable75[/bold] wrote: There was an earlier comment that the school may be supplying lockers - but I doubt this girl would use one even if available. And "Greenwich Free School home time is 17.30 on Tues, Weds, Thurs" Also noticed:- "This young lady is already well known to parents and students of GFS as a school non-attender , which she already was before she came to GFS . She wont be missed as she consistently disrupts the learning environment and has even had family members threatening students outside the school gates" DaphneR said "I have a friend who is very senior with one of the national papers so I am seeking advice from him" Haven't seen anything so presumably they just laughed. Deefea intended to contact Watchdog. Well I hope if they even bothered with the story they take the time to estabilsh the truth & not just the wild unfounded allegations Deefea also said she was adding a Facebook group "Parents of GFS fight against Newsshopper" What for her & DaphneR?[/p][/quote]Very sad when you have people clinging on for attention. You missed the boat, most of the relentless efforts to ridicule and humiliate were carried out a lot further up the page. If yours had any substance, I would bother to answer. The only thing that makes me really giggle, is whilst Daphne and I were trying to communicate, one of your loyal buddies (must be a speedy typist) jumped onto facebook, excitedly, and came back to post on it within about 5 seconds, presumably to see faces (apparently he has seen my type before, I doubt it mate, you don't seem the kind of thing that would interest me). Since we have ways to communicate, which are now not open to stalkers, we can laugh about the embarrassing way in which people on here who actually have no involvement with the story, nor any real positive impact on anyone, get excited over such things. It is highly amusing that us parents can rant all day when it involves our children; Whats your excuse? I do hope you find something better to do with all your lives than relentlessly read and comment, for the sake of commenting. You probably won't see us parents on here again, unless of course the apology does come, which we would hope for really. If not, enjoy yourselves on here day after day. I can imagine you will fulfil your next week, picking out grammar errors, accidental typos and trying to sum people up by their writing. I soooo envy you all and wish I could join you in your exciting group :( Deefea

3:57pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Deefea says...

Deefea wrote:
reasonable75 wrote:
There was an earlier comment that the school may be supplying lockers - but I doubt this girl would use one even if available. And "Greenwich Free School home time is 17.30 on Tues, Weds, Thurs"



Also noticed:-

"This young lady is already well known to parents and students of GFS as a school non-attender , which she already was before she came to GFS . She wont be missed as she consistently disrupts the learning environment and has even had family members threatening students outside the school gates"

DaphneR said "I have a friend who is very senior with one of the national papers so I am seeking advice from him" Haven't seen anything so presumably they just laughed.

Deefea intended to contact Watchdog. Well I hope if they even bothered with the story they take the time to estabilsh the truth & not just the wild unfounded allegations

Deefea also said she was adding a Facebook group "Parents of GFS fight against Newsshopper" What for her & DaphneR?
Very sad when you have people clinging on for attention. You missed the boat, most of the relentless efforts to ridicule and humiliate were carried out a lot further up the page. If yours had any substance, I would bother to answer. The only thing that makes me really giggle, is whilst Daphne and I were trying to communicate, one of your loyal buddies (must be a speedy typist) jumped onto facebook, excitedly, and came back to post on it within about 5 seconds, presumably to see faces (apparently he has seen my type before, I doubt it mate, you don't seem the kind of thing that would interest me). Since we have ways to communicate, which are now not open to stalkers, we can laugh about the embarrassing way in which people on here who actually have no involvement with the story, nor any real positive impact on anyone, get excited over such things. It is highly amusing that us parents can rant all day when it involves our children; Whats your excuse? I do hope you find something better to do with all your lives than relentlessly read and comment, for the sake of commenting. You probably won't see us parents on here again, unless of course the apology does come, which we would hope for really. If not, enjoy yourselves on here day after day. I can imagine you will fulfil your next week, picking out grammar errors, accidental typos and trying to sum people up by their writing. I soooo envy you all and wish I could join you in your exciting group :(
*fulfill - you almost had me there ;)
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]reasonable75[/bold] wrote: There was an earlier comment that the school may be supplying lockers - but I doubt this girl would use one even if available. And "Greenwich Free School home time is 17.30 on Tues, Weds, Thurs" Also noticed:- "This young lady is already well known to parents and students of GFS as a school non-attender , which she already was before she came to GFS . She wont be missed as she consistently disrupts the learning environment and has even had family members threatening students outside the school gates" DaphneR said "I have a friend who is very senior with one of the national papers so I am seeking advice from him" Haven't seen anything so presumably they just laughed. Deefea intended to contact Watchdog. Well I hope if they even bothered with the story they take the time to estabilsh the truth & not just the wild unfounded allegations Deefea also said she was adding a Facebook group "Parents of GFS fight against Newsshopper" What for her & DaphneR?[/p][/quote]Very sad when you have people clinging on for attention. You missed the boat, most of the relentless efforts to ridicule and humiliate were carried out a lot further up the page. If yours had any substance, I would bother to answer. The only thing that makes me really giggle, is whilst Daphne and I were trying to communicate, one of your loyal buddies (must be a speedy typist) jumped onto facebook, excitedly, and came back to post on it within about 5 seconds, presumably to see faces (apparently he has seen my type before, I doubt it mate, you don't seem the kind of thing that would interest me). Since we have ways to communicate, which are now not open to stalkers, we can laugh about the embarrassing way in which people on here who actually have no involvement with the story, nor any real positive impact on anyone, get excited over such things. It is highly amusing that us parents can rant all day when it involves our children; Whats your excuse? I do hope you find something better to do with all your lives than relentlessly read and comment, for the sake of commenting. You probably won't see us parents on here again, unless of course the apology does come, which we would hope for really. If not, enjoy yourselves on here day after day. I can imagine you will fulfil your next week, picking out grammar errors, accidental typos and trying to sum people up by their writing. I soooo envy you all and wish I could join you in your exciting group :([/p][/quote]*fulfill - you almost had me there ;) Deefea

11:51pm Sun 21 Oct 12

candyland1970 says...

the truth will come out and i be having the last laugh
the truth will come out and i be having the last laugh candyland1970

5:40pm Sat 27 Oct 12

Oldchap says...

Deefea wrote:
Deefea wrote:
reasonable75 wrote:
There was an earlier comment that the school may be supplying lockers - but I doubt this girl would use one even if available. And "Greenwich Free School home time is 17.30 on Tues, Weds, Thurs"



Also noticed:-

"This young lady is already well known to parents and students of GFS as a school non-attender , which she already was before she came to GFS . She wont be missed as she consistently disrupts the learning environment and has even had family members threatening students outside the school gates"

DaphneR said "I have a friend who is very senior with one of the national papers so I am seeking advice from him" Haven't seen anything so presumably they just laughed.

Deefea intended to contact Watchdog. Well I hope if they even bothered with the story they take the time to estabilsh the truth & not just the wild unfounded allegations

Deefea also said she was adding a Facebook group "Parents of GFS fight against Newsshopper" What for her & DaphneR?
Very sad when you have people clinging on for attention. You missed the boat, most of the relentless efforts to ridicule and humiliate were carried out a lot further up the page. If yours had any substance, I would bother to answer. The only thing that makes me really giggle, is whilst Daphne and I were trying to communicate, one of your loyal buddies (must be a speedy typist) jumped onto facebook, excitedly, and came back to post on it within about 5 seconds, presumably to see faces (apparently he has seen my type before, I doubt it mate, you don't seem the kind of thing that would interest me). Since we have ways to communicate, which are now not open to stalkers, we can laugh about the embarrassing way in which people on here who actually have no involvement with the story, nor any real positive impact on anyone, get excited over such things. It is highly amusing that us parents can rant all day when it involves our children; Whats your excuse? I do hope you find something better to do with all your lives than relentlessly read and comment, for the sake of commenting. You probably won't see us parents on here again, unless of course the apology does come, which we would hope for really. If not, enjoy yourselves on here day after day. I can imagine you will fulfil your next week, picking out grammar errors, accidental typos and trying to sum people up by their writing. I soooo envy you all and wish I could join you in your exciting group :(
*fulfill - you almost had me there ;)
commenting on your own comment?
[quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Deefea[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]reasonable75[/bold] wrote: There was an earlier comment that the school may be supplying lockers - but I doubt this girl would use one even if available. And "Greenwich Free School home time is 17.30 on Tues, Weds, Thurs" Also noticed:- "This young lady is already well known to parents and students of GFS as a school non-attender , which she already was before she came to GFS . She wont be missed as she consistently disrupts the learning environment and has even had family members threatening students outside the school gates" DaphneR said "I have a friend who is very senior with one of the national papers so I am seeking advice from him" Haven't seen anything so presumably they just laughed. Deefea intended to contact Watchdog. Well I hope if they even bothered with the story they take the time to estabilsh the truth & not just the wild unfounded allegations Deefea also said she was adding a Facebook group "Parents of GFS fight against Newsshopper" What for her & DaphneR?[/p][/quote]Very sad when you have people clinging on for attention. You missed the boat, most of the relentless efforts to ridicule and humiliate were carried out a lot further up the page. If yours had any substance, I would bother to answer. The only thing that makes me really giggle, is whilst Daphne and I were trying to communicate, one of your loyal buddies (must be a speedy typist) jumped onto facebook, excitedly, and came back to post on it within about 5 seconds, presumably to see faces (apparently he has seen my type before, I doubt it mate, you don't seem the kind of thing that would interest me). Since we have ways to communicate, which are now not open to stalkers, we can laugh about the embarrassing way in which people on here who actually have no involvement with the story, nor any real positive impact on anyone, get excited over such things. It is highly amusing that us parents can rant all day when it involves our children; Whats your excuse? I do hope you find something better to do with all your lives than relentlessly read and comment, for the sake of commenting. You probably won't see us parents on here again, unless of course the apology does come, which we would hope for really. If not, enjoy yourselves on here day after day. I can imagine you will fulfil your next week, picking out grammar errors, accidental typos and trying to sum people up by their writing. I soooo envy you all and wish I could join you in your exciting group :([/p][/quote]*fulfill - you almost had me there ;)[/p][/quote]commenting on your own comment? Oldchap

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find