Im i now right in saying that the new school can only be built upon the site where myers school now stands , i.e i thought we was all told that the new school would be just in front of the myers school , something to do with greenbelt??
If so Then pupils will go into Mobiles for a while- i thought the proposing group and others was against this????

Also Im told the proposing group seem to have a problem with the Old loxley college Building !!!! Along the lines of the new school would look abit silly with the old college building at the side of it and its abit of a risk to saftey etc

As far as i know with this Loxley college this building will NOT be knocked down because something to do with if they did then the land could not be built on again- being green belt land or something like that ???;)

Also as we all know the Bsf is for schools - But how much will the planning of the roads eg traffic, crossings, yellow lines to stop parking in the area be ?
how much are the sheffield council paying for this and Will all BSF schools get the same money for crossings etc? I did ask the council and there does seem abit of a problem here - Will the government help towards this?
LEGAL NEWS!!
as you know i cant say to much - but there was a massive delay from labour council in getting documents + Papers that Socs Legal team have asked for a NUMBER OF TIMES!!

then When Lib dems came to power (council same legal team ) There was again a big delay in getting the same paper work - for some very very odd reason
So the socs legal team is having to look thru ALL paper work - and as a result the legal FIGHT Is still on going!! cant say much more on that. but thought i would keep you in the loop with what i can say

Ive underlined some questions that i hope perhaps someone could answer

a local councillor told me that they are not sure if the government will put so much towards the crossings etc and the council are not sure how much it would cost for yellow lines , crossings etc etc.

As for the school despite what the public was told about - it would not be fair on pupils maybe going into mobile buildings etc in the public consultations and they would not have to do this at the new school as it would be built in front of the old one
It does now look like pupils at myers will be put into mobiles for a while the new school is getting built!!
all very odd in my opinion That this new school has to be built on the same place as the old one !

Problems problems it seems , is this school doomed before it even begins YES !!!

as for the traffic problems this school will cause... still after all this time we have no real answer to the problems
But what can you expect , i mean a report came out saying the government have still not got the basics right in our lower schools ....after how long??

This new school is a big gamble - and whos the ones to suffer your children if it does not pay off

a local councillor told me that they are not sure if the government will put so much towards the crossings etc and the council are not sure how much it would cost for yellow lines , crossings etc etc.

As for the school despite what the public was told about - it would not be fair on pupils maybe going into mobile buildings etc in the public consultations and they would not have to do this at the new school as it would be built in front of the old one
It does now look like pupils at myers will be put into mobiles for a while the new school is getting built!!
all very odd in my opinion That this new school has to be built on the same place as the old one !

Problems problems it seems , is this school doomed before it even begins YES !!!

as for the traffic problems this school will cause... still after all this time we have no real answer to the problems
But what can you expect , i mean a report came out saying the government have still not got the basics right in our lower schools ....after how long??

This new school is a big gamble - and whos the ones to suffer your children if it does not pay off

Mobile classrooms simply equate to a deterioration in student behaviour. Any management wanting to get off to a good start in a new school would want to keep a tight grip on behaviour in times of significant change and wouldn't even consider hosting teaching & learning in temporary accommodation, if it could be avoided at all.
The damage incurred could be phenomenal, both in terms of student progress and repair.
I meant to say, that I have been in this situation, so can speak from experience.

Quote "Problems problems it seems , is this school doomed before it even begins YES !!!

as for the traffic problems this school will cause... still after all this time we have no real answer to the problems
But what can you expect , i mean a report came out saying the government have still not got the basics right in our lower schools ....after how long??"

What if the start time at the new school was after the morning rush hour. Say 9.30am start with a half hour later finish at the end of the day.This could be achieved with minimum expense. Less pollution at rush hours, more pleasant for the walkers,quicker journey for the drivers.

Quote "Problems problems it seems , is this school doomed before it even begins YES !!!

as for the traffic problems this school will cause... still after all this time we have no real answer to the problems
But what can you expect , i mean a report came out saying the government have still not got the basics right in our lower schools ....after how long??"

What if the start time at the new school was after the morning rush hour. Say 9.30am start with a half hour later finish at the end of the day.This could be achieved with minimum expense. Less pollution at rush hours, more pleasant for the walkers,quicker journey for the drivers.


Good points made the only problem i find with this is alot of parents work , so in some cases drop there kids off to school at the normal starting times , with there siblings . i cant see some parents being able to change there work times BUT a very good point made:thumbsup:

Mobile classrooms simply equate to a deterioration in student behaviour. Any management wanting to get off to a good start in a new school would want to keep a tight grip on behaviour in times of significant change and wouldn't even consider hosting teaching & learning in temporary accommodation, if it could be avoided at all.
The damage incurred could be phenomenal, both in terms of student progress and repair.
I meant to say, that I have been in this situation, so can speak from experience.

What i cant understand is There will be Job losses and staff loss in both schools - im sure as has been said alot of teachers will not sit and wait to see if they may or may not have a job so will be looking to leave asap!!
and this turns to as alot of parents said short term temp teachers leading upto the new school and exams for some pupils

Good points made the only problem i find with this is alot of parents work , so in some cases drop there kids off to school at the normal starting times , with there siblings . i cant see some parents being able to change there work times BUT a very good point made:thumbsup:

That is a point. But lots of companies allow flexi time work these days
and we are are only talking 30 minutes either way.
Compared to 10 weeks or so when they dont take their children to school
at all, and have to manage work as well.
It is often the simplest and cheapest solutions that can work the best, if
people will just have an open mind and think things through

That is a point. But lots of companies allow flexi time work these days
and we are are only talking 30 minutes either way.
Compared to 10 weeks or so when they dont take their children to school
at all, and have to manage work as well.
It is often the simplest and cheapest solutions that can work the best, if
people will just have an open mind and think things through

Anouther point is if the pupils finish later Then this would be at a peak time again for traffic and parents picking up there kids would add to more traffic. also if the pupils are walking home Then it is more darker in winter.

I do think its Time for the Lib dems to do a full public Consultation on traffic this school will cause !! ( But hopefully better than the labour consultation that we had on the merger itself :P)

I hear that the Judicial Review appeal is due to be heard on 5th December. Would any member of those opposing the merger care to let us all know on this thread what the basis of any argument might be? Many thanks. Harry.

I hear that the Judicial Review appeal is due to be heard on 5th December. Would any member of those opposing the merger care to let us all know on this thread what the basis of any argument might be? Many thanks. Harry.

If one plays poker one doesnt play it with the cards facing the opposition do they?

I hear that the Judicial Review appeal is due to be heard on 5th December. Would any member of those opposing the merger care to let us all know on this thread what the basis of any argument might be? Many thanks. Harry.

If you know the date of the judicial review then surely you would know about the legal case as the date hasnt been made public to my knowledge!!

Stop asking silly questions that you know will not get answered - look at bobstar's post please!!

Anouther point is if the pupils finish later Then this would be at a peak time again for traffic and parents picking up there kids would add to more traffic. also if the pupils are walking home Then it is more darker in winter.

I do think its Time for the Lib dems to do a full public Consultation on traffic this school will cause !! ( But hopefully better than the labour consultation that we had on the merger itself :P)

As I understand it,the finishing time at Wisewood is 3-05pm. If the school start time at the new school was 30 mins later,the finish time would be 3-35pm. As far as I am aware that is not peak traffic time.
Yes it is darker in winter,nothing much we can do about that. However on the shortest day of the year 21 December, the sunset time is 3-51pm followed by twilight time of approx 40 minutes making it dark at just turned 4.30pm. This would give ample time for the vast majority of kids to be home before dark.

As I understand it,the finishing time at Wisewood is 3-05pm. If the school start time at the new school was 30 mins later,the finish time would be 3-35pm. As far as I am aware that is not peak traffic time.
Yes it is darker in winter,nothing much we can do about that. However on the shortest day of the year 21 December, the sunset time is 3-51pm followed by twilight time of approx 40 minutes making it dark at just turned 4.30pm. This would give ample time for the vast majority of kids to be home before dark.

Anouther problem i think is i know wisewood has lots of after school clubs, i.e basket ball, football etc etc
I hope children will carry on these things if the new school goes ahead , because some may have to miss out if they have to get home before it goes dark

I hear that the Judicial Review appeal is due to be heard on 5th December. Would any member of those opposing the merger care to let us all know on this thread what the basis of any argument might be? Many thanks. Harry.

Is this in public view now ? How did you find out about this ?

im not sure about the Judicial Review - i thought it had stopped a while ago
And there was anouther legal case about something else . but i could be wrong;)

Anouther problem i think is i know wisewood has lots of after school clubs, i.e basket ball, football etc etc
I hope children will carry on these things if the new school goes ahead , because some may have to miss out if they have to get home before it goes dark

I know you are never going to accept these proposals,as they go against your fight to have Wisewood kept open. You can go on for ever finding problems At the end of the day a certain amount of give and take has to happen no plan can suit everybody.

I have one final proposal which would answer all the proplems over later finish. Start earlier in the morning finish earlier in the afternoon, as they do in many european countries (8am)
I don't hold my breath on many thinking that being a good idea though.

If you know the date of the judicial review then surely you would know about the legal case as the date hasnt been made public to my knowledge!!

Stop asking silly questions that you know will not get answered - look at bobstar's post please!!

Sorry but very pertinent question. One only has to check lists of hearings schduled to find this sort of info out - I am really temptted to say that Bobstar's posting is the BEST ever on this thread as it does sum up the position of both sides doesn't it?? Hopefully though, December 5th will bring a clear and unequivocal decision as to how this debate will be pursued. The pretence that it is not happening is pointless - sorry, but the date is in the public forum - not for me to say how but there you go!

ps Loopy - would really appreacite you dropping the remarks like "

Let's all hope that 5th Dec will at least give some finality EITHER WAY in this debate so that we all can then perhaps agree to work together collectively for our kids future in whatever direction is agreed upon.

It would be brilliant, just brilliant, to harness the strength of feeling from both camps (as Bobstar alludes to) to make whatever the outcome is, successful. :):)

ps. Forgot to say - loopy - would be really good if you could drop the personal remarks that you have started putting in like "drop the silly questions" That's pretty subjkectiev isn't it? I found the question quite exacting, just like the questions that your group put to others on this Forum? Don't remember you being asked to sytop asking silly questions! No real need for it I guess. Many thanks for your careful consideration of my request. Best wishes - harryarwen.

I know you are never going to accept these proposals,as they go against your fight to have Wisewood kept open. You can go on for ever finding problems At the end of the day a certain amount of give and take has to happen no plan can suit everybody.

I have one final proposal which would answer all the proplems over later finish. Start earlier in the morning finish earlier in the afternoon, as they do in many european countries (8am)
I don't hold my breath on many thinking that being a good idea though.

Also in many european countries They have alot smaller class size , its said i think that children learn better this way!
I do think the fight will go on to the very end !!

and as stated by others theres still many questions still to be answerd of The planning and Traffic .
That still no-one has a clear answer too

I asked about the 5th dec -judicial review its really a none event that i know of !
SOCS have agreed this with lib dems . but the outcome is good for socs in one way !
you will see what i mean after

Sorry but very pertinent question. One only has to check lists of hearings schduled to find this sort of info out - I am really temptted to say that Bobstar's posting is the BEST ever on this thread as it does sum up the position of both sides doesn't it?? Hopefully though, December 5th will bring a clear and unequivocal decision as to how this debate will be pursued. The pretence that it is not happening is pointless - sorry, but the date is in the public forum - not for me to say how but there you go!

.

as you have no public links to the Dec 5th review as its not in public view
The only other way of finding this out was the governors meeting on monday:suspect: ;)
I was also told this today

ps. Forgot to say - loopy - would be really good if you could drop the personal remarks that you have started putting in like "drop the silly questions" That's pretty subjkectiev isn't it? I found the question quite exacting, just like the questions that your group put to others on this Forum? Don't remember you being asked to sytop asking silly questions! No real need for it I guess. Many thanks for your careful consideration of my request. Best wishes - harryarwen.

Harry, I thought your question was silly - its not a personal remark at all!!

You should know that details of the legal case arent going to be discussed on here. Im sure the mods have stated this on the forum before - about legal cases and not to discuss details - hence why I thought it was silly.

You might want to find out more information about the judicial review before you start talking about it also!! Are you sure that the judicial review is happening on the 5th December??

Harry, I thought your question was silly - its not a personal remark at all!!

You should know that details of the legal case arent going to be discussed on here. Im sure the mods have stated this on the forum before - about legal cases and not to discuss details - hence why I thought it was silly.

You might want to find out more information about the judicial review before you start talking about it also!! Are you sure that the judicial review is happening on the 5th December??

Thanks for confirmation about not personal! I accept your reply in full. It just seemed strange that 1 side of the debate could call for open and honest answers and then claim answers not being given, when the other side could equally claim the same and then hide behind the legal context - not equitable in my opinion but there you go! Thanks for clarification :D

as you have no public links to the Dec 5th review as its not in public view
The only other way of finding this out was the governors meeting on monday:suspect: ;)
I was also told this today

What Governors meerting would impart this? Surely you are aware that LEA have full knowledge but anyway, good to see previous postings on this topic. Guess we are all happy to wait and see outcome.

Howevre, outocme not important - pleasea ddress previous comment -what IS important is that WHATEVER the outcome, that BOTH sides afterwards can come togther to work for a best solution for our kids. :thumbsup:

What Governors meerting would impart this? Surely you are aware that LEA have full knowledge but anyway, good to see previous postings on this topic. Guess we are all happy to wait and see outcome.

Howevre, outocme not important - pleasea ddress previous comment -what IS important is that WHATEVER the outcome, that BOTH sides afterwards can come togther to work for a best solution for our kids. :thumbsup:

If it works out that the 'new school' is to go ahead then I cannot support it at all - I cannot support something I am dead set against.

Thanks for confirmation about not personal! I accept your reply in full. It just seemed strange that 1 side of the debate could call for open and honest answers and then claim answers not being given, when the other side could equally claim the same and then hide behind the legal context - not equitable in my opinion but there you go! Thanks for clarification :D

Most people on here accept the fact that a legal case cannot be discussed until the end of it - you seem to be different - why is that?

Most people on here accept the fact that a legal case cannot be discussed until the end of it ..........

No. We don't.

Some criminal cases may have elements that cannot be discussed under penalty of contempt of court.

Yours would be a civil case that has no restrictions other than those that you choose to place upon it.
You are free to discuss or not as you or your advisors recommend.
Anyone else can discuss it as much as they want.

The lack of information about your submission whilst the school merger programme rolls on unimpeded, does your case no favours.

No. We don't.

Some criminal cases may have elements that cannot be discussed under penalty of contempt of court.

Yours would be a civil case that has no restrictions other than those that you choose to place upon it.
You are free to discuss or not as you or your advisors recommend.
Anyone else can discuss it as much as they want.

The lack of information about your submission whilst the school merger programme rolls on unimpeded, does your case no favours.

SOCS have been advised not to discuss details of the case on here - I have said this before.

Harryarwen keeps pressing for details of it.

No aspect of the case has anything to do with the forum so I cant see why not discussing it on here does it no favours.

When the legal action is finished if anybody wants to see all the files I have with details of the legal case they can ask me and I can arrange for them to see them.

My post 601

Seems no-one can answer the questions must be a real problem Then!!!
Also the local councillors cant answer them as well

Heres anouther question What is the totol cost of this new school? And why are the proposing group asking for more money?

SOCS have been advised not to discuss details of the case on here - I have said this before.

Harryarwen keeps pressing for details of it.

Sorry but I think not! Please re-read my questions. I have asked a couple of times perhaps three. The dictionary describes an ask as "to put a question to or to requests and answer", whilst "pressing" is exerting, harassing or causing harassment". I'm sure even you would agree that asking about the matters to be discussed on your 5th December judicial review is hardly harassment! Clearly I would agree with the previous poster who also notes the need for detail. Many thanks.

Just thought we all need to know this, as it is in the public interest. The hearing is set for Friday 5th December or at least was last week - please visit the Royal Courts of Justice website which should be able to confirm the listings for this week. What I have been able to ascertain is that the hearing is in response to the rejection by the judge in December 2007 of SOCS appeal. This hearing is NOT a re- hearing of that evidence at all but what is known as a "permission hearing". The 2 sides invovled - Sheffield City council and those opposed to the merger will have to present arguments as to why the case should be alloowed to proceed to a final hearing in the judicial review process. There might well be a decision on the day but equally there might be a judgement at a later date.

Just thought that from the info that I have been able to ascertain that everybody would benefit from knowing what the process is!

Just thought we all need to know this, as it is in the public interest. The hearing is set for Friday 5th December or at least was last week - please visit the Royal Courts of Justice website which should be able to confirm the listings for this week. What I have been able to ascertain is that the hearing is in response to the rejection by the judge in December 2007 of SOCS appeal. This hearing is NOT a re- hearing of that evidence at all but what is known as a "permission hearing". The 2 sides invovled - Sheffield City council and those opposed to the merger will have to present arguments as to why the case should be alloowed to proceed to a final hearing in the judicial review process. There might well be a decision on the day but equally there might be a judgement at a later date.

Just thought that from the info that I have been able to ascertain that everybody would benefit from knowing what the process is!

Thanks for this Harry

Thought i would let you know As far as i know the legal case is not going ahead so really not sure there is anything on 5th of december
Lib dem council and Socs legal team have come to some arrangement ;)

On a Pressing note tho .I read this in a national paper -not sure if it affects the merger (dont think it does anyway)

BETRAYED- Schools face £30bn axe

Flagship plans to rebuild every secondary school in the country are set to be RIPPED UP!
the threat to the £30 billion building programme was buried in the small print of chancellor Alister Darlings emergency Budget. in a hidden spending squeeze.

every school building programme timetabled is now being reviewed

iT goes on to say -In a statement by Jim knight "This is not a scaling back. it is absolutely right to make sure that the TAXPAYER gets value for money"

Lib dem - David Laws urged Ed balls to Make an Urgent statement an come clean on this issue.

Thanks for this Harry

Thought i would let you know As far as i know the legal case is not going ahead so really not sure there is anything on 5th of december
Lib dem council and Socs legal team have come to some arrangement ;)

Thanks for letting us all know Barmy. As I said, that was the news as of last week. The case does seem to have been remvoed from the Courts of Justice list for this Friday (unless its gone directly into Chambers for review).

Any further details obvioulsy welcomed. :thumbsup:

Thanks for letting us all know Barmy. As I said, that was the news as of last week. The case does seem to have been remvoed from the Courts of Justice list for this Friday (unless its gone directly into Chambers for review).

Any further details obvioulsy welcomed. :thumbsup:

As yet i cant say what arrangement has been made by Lib dem council and socs legal team ;);)

Thought i would let you know As far as i know the legal case is not going ahead so really not sure there is anything on 5th of december
Lib dem council and Socs legal team have come to some arrangement ;)

care to enlighten us?

Im i now right in saying that the new school can only be built upon the site where myers school now stands , i.e i thought we was all told that the new school would be just in front of the myers school , something to do with greenbelt??
If so Then pupils will go into Mobiles for a while- i thought the proposing group and others was against this????

Also Im told the proposing group seem to have a problem with the Old loxley college Building !!!! Along the lines of the new school would look abit silly with the old college building at the side of it and its abit of a risk to saftey etc

As far as i know with this Loxley college this building will NOT be knocked down because something to do with if they did then the land could not be built on again- being green belt land or something like that ???;)

Also as we all know the Bsf is for schools - But how much will the planning of the roads eg traffic, crossings, yellow lines to stop parking in the area be ?
how much are the sheffield council paying for this and Will all BSF schools get the same money for crossings etc? I did ask the council and there does seem abit of a problem here - Will the government help towards this?


HARRY!!

did you know about any of the above?
You did point out at one bit how you was against pupils being in mobiles etc
So whats your views or your (groups) view????

care to enlighten us?

Cant do that Foxy as yet

Flagship plans to rebuild every secondary school in the country are set to be RIPPED UP!

The threat to the £30 billion building programme was buried in the small print of chancellor Alister Darlings emergency Budget, in a hidden spending squeeze.

Every school building programme timetabled is now being reviewed.

ItT goes on to say -In a statement by Jim knight "This is not a scaling back. it is absolutely right to make sure that the TAXPAYER gets value for money"

Lib dem - David Laws urged Ed balls to Make an Urgent statement an come clean on this issue.


I think we all need to know a little more on this one. Every building programme timetabled being reviewed in plain english labourism means "it aint happening" to me. Im wary of anything hidden in the smally print. WE NEED TO KNOW MORE. This may not effect just these schools but every school yet to go through this process !!!

I think we all need to know a little more on this one. Every building programme timetabled being reviewed in plain english labourism means "it aint happening" to me. Im wary of anything hidden in the smally print. WE NEED TO KNOW MORE. This may not effect just these schools but every school yet to go through this process !!!

Its on page 21 of Sundays News of The World.

Ive looked for a link from their website for this but there isnt one.

Hopefully, all will be revealed tomorrow about any outcome and solution between SOCS and LEA legal dept. There is clearly no Hearing at Courts of Justice as it is removed from the lists but clelary dependent on agreement between the 2 legal teams. I guess we must all wait with baited breath? ;)

Protest outside Town Hall from 1pm on Tuesday 9th December!!!

Protest against the planning brief for Wisewood/Myers Grove merger!!! There is to be a planning board meeting with regards to the planning brief - they will decide whether to go ahead with the brief that has been drawn up!! Come along and oppose this!! Make as much noise as possible about this sham merger!!!

The meeting starts at 1.45pm for all interested in attending.

Bring along banners opposing the merger and planning brief!!!

Hopefully, all will be revealed tomorrow about any outcome and solution between SOCS and LEA legal dept. There is clearly no Hearing at Courts of Justice as it is removed from the lists but clelary dependent on agreement between the 2 legal teams. I guess we must all wait with baited breath? ;)


So what happened?

I think the BRIDGE idea is really really stupid idea . IF the school goes ahead i would not want my child going across the bridge at all

We all know what kids are like when they get together like "i dare you to do this or that"
i really cant see the logic in the footbridge at all and i do feel it should be made more public as im sure it would cause uproar by the locals.
it will not solve the traffic problems that some people who live in the areas have not yet been fully informed of - Lib dems council need to sort this out and let all know about the plans of the bridge and traffic

so what was the outcome at the town hall

At the last SOCS meeting - councillor Steve Ayris has been asked to have a public consultation - on traffic gridlock, bridge idea etc etc This im sure will let all know who live around the areas - stannington, loxley, malin bridge, walkley, hillsborough a chance to air there views in a public meeting ! - hope steve will get back on this soon.

Also Andrew Sangar is wanting a meeting with socs im told soon.
and Local communitie groups are all getting together to have a meeting against traffic-and school after xmas - i do know the hillsborough Forum group will not want to be involved with any of the above im sure they have there reasons but none have yet been given to socs CHAIR. but its good to see all other Local groups coming together and standing together - big thanks must go to them:thumbsup::thumbsup:

And may be some time soon, Our Kids can have a brand new school

At the last SOCS meeting - councillor Steve Ayris has been asked to have a public consultation - on traffic gridlock, bridge idea etc etc This im sure will let all know who live around the areas - stannington, loxley, malin bridge, walkley, hillsborough a chance to air there views in a public meeting ! - hope steve will get back on this soon.

Also Andrew Sangar is wanting a meeting with socs im told soon.
and Local communitie groups are all getting together to have a meeting against traffic-and school after xmas

Yes, but what happened at the Town Hall?

Tonight's Star makes it pretty clear - despite the protests from the 7 people shown in the Star and the 7 shown on Calendar (Not aware that there were others - that is something in control of the media!) and the 1 rep who attended the meeting from the Protestors (Star reports and says "parents protested against the school merger outside the Town Hall before yesterday's meeting, but only one stayed to voice concerns to the committee about extra traffic generated by the new school") :- that plans for a single new school to replace Wisewood and Myers Grove secondaries have taken a step forward with the APPROVAL (capitals are mine, not the Star's) of a design and planning brief.

As Spooferman says, we hopefully are another step on the way for a new modern school for our kids in Sheffield 6 despite a protest from the 7 people shown on TV and in the Star? Bizarrre response given the implications for 2 secondaries, and a huge number of Feeder primaries from each area, that the future for our kids in a modern equipped and staffed school can be potentially jeopardised by such a minority - who then claim to have a majority opinion behind them??? Just a thought..........:thumbsup::):D

According to intelligence received, Save our Community Schools (SOCS), have DROPPED their request for an appeal against the initial findings from the Judicial Review, disclaiming SOCS opposition to the merger of the 2 schools from earlier in the year. From postings on here telling us that this was all confidential and advised by SOCS legal reps that the build up to the supposed hearing on December 5th could not be discussed, I would like to openly invite a rep to report on why the Judicial Review "permissions" hearing was dropped in the courts, and why it will not be proceeding, and if not proceeding, what strategy of opposition will replace it? I would also welcome a posting of any "deal" that was done to drop the case with representatives of the LEA. Many thanks.

I would just like to thank the parents and members of the community who turned up to the protest yesterday - and would like to thank those of you who did attend the meeting (not 1 as stated in the press). Due to the timing of the meeting it was not possible for all to attend that wanted to - but you will get your time!! I could not attend as my child was ill and home from school.

The next protest will be advertised nearer the date.

If anybody would like any information on what SOCS are planning for the future please contact SOCS via the website - link to this is in my signature!!

SOCS are still fighting for the two school option!!!

Personally I think we all need to start concentrating on the new school. The two school option would possibly have worked but no-one can see it happening anymore. Even the children who attend these two schools are buzzing about what their new school will or might have and they seem pretty positive about it. Even the teachers are discussing ideas with the students about when the new school is going to open and what the students would like to see in the new school. Surely it would be easier just to accept that it is going to happen and start planning together?

Personally I think we all need to start concentrating on the new school. The two school option would possibly have worked but no-one can see it happening anymore. Even the children who attend these two schools are buzzing about what their new school will or might have and they seem pretty positive about it. Even the teachers are discussing ideas with the students about when the new school is going to open and what the students would like to see in the new school. Surely it would be easier just to accept that it is going to happen and start planning together?

Absolutely, couldn't agree with you more - particularly if only 7 can turn up in opposition. I really would advocate in drawing that real zeal in oppostion into ensuring that the very best is achieved in a newly merged school - best use of energy all round, methinks! :):thumbsup:

I would just like to thank the parents and members of the community who turned up to the protest yesterday - and would like to thank those of you who did attend the meeting (not 1 as stated in the press). Due to the timing of the meeting it was not possible for all to attend that wanted to - but you will get your time!! I could not attend as my child was ill and home from school.

Really sorry you couldn't stay on for the debate at the meeting - despite you being there on the photo as 1 of the 7 published as being there against the merger in fornt of the town ahll. Hope your child is recovering well ( sincerely!!.)

Is there any way we could get to a position at all where all this energy from all could be harnessed in the best interests of kids in Sheffield 6 to get a brand new school, with brand new facilities, with a brand new curriculum, with a brand new Governance strucutre, with brand new opportiunities for all, with a brand new post 16 facility for all in this area of Sheffield: that this proposed merger offers - I still think we are missing a trick no by not harnessing mutual energies in working together in making this happen in the best interests of ALL communities.

Personally I think we all need to start concentrating on the new school. The two school option would possibly have worked but no-one can see it happening anymore. Even the children who attend these two schools are buzzing about what their new school will or might have and they seem pretty positive about it. Even the teachers are discussing ideas with the students about when the new school is going to open and what the students would like to see in the new school. Surely it would be easier just to accept that it is going to happen and start planning together?

I know that not all the children are 'buzzing' about the merger.

And I have made my feelings on the subject perfectly clear - I will never accept the 'new school' so cannot start concentrating on it!!! No its not easier to accept that it is going to happen and I cannot plan for the 'new school' at all.

I would like people to think about the those that are going to be running this 'new school' (should it happen) - these are the people that find it acceptable to have our children walk to school across a bridge that goes through isolated overgrown woodland, across a river and at the side of an unfenced pond - to me this is a real safety issue and I cannot leave my children (if the school goes ahead) in the care of these sorts of people!!

Shouldnt these people have some sort of idea about child safety??

Really sorry you couldn't stay on for the debate at the meeting - despite you being there on the photo as 1 of the 7 published as being there against the merger in fornt of the town ahll. Hope your child is recovering well ( sincerely!!.)



Sorry Harry - you have me mistaken for someone else - a lot of people on here know who I am and can say from the picture that I wasnt there!!

I know that not all the children are 'buzzing' about the merger.

And I have made my feelings on the subject perfectly clear - I will never accept the 'new school' so cannot start concentrating on it!!! No its not easier to accept that it is going to happen and I cannot plan for the 'new school' at all.

I would like people to think about the those that are going to be running this 'new school' (should it happen) - these are the people that find it acceptable to have our children walk to school across a bridge that goes through isolated overgrown woodland, across a river and at the side of an unfenced pond - to me this is a real safety issue and I cannot leave my children (if the school goes ahead) in the care of these sorts of people!!

Shouldnt these people have some sort of idea about child safety??

I would not expect every child to be buzzing about it. It is an impossiblity for 100% of people to like something no matter what the subject.

Obviously there are areas which need looking at again, such as you have mentioned with the bridge etc but this is where people need to start fighting to get what they want. Safety is a priority for every single parent and so those parents should be fighting together for a solution that gives our children the safety they deserve. Whilst people are busy arguing against the new school, the plans are being made without those parents consultation and without those parents making any specific objections. If everyone was paying attention to what is inevitably going to happen then there would be more pressure on them to make changes to their ideas, making it safer for the children for example.

I would not expect every child to be buzzing about it. It is an impossiblity for 100% of people to like something no matter what the subject.

Obviously there are areas which need looking at again, such as you have mentioned with the bridge etc but this is where people need to start fighting to get what they want. Safety is a priority for every single parent and so those parents should be fighting together for a solution that gives our children the safety they deserve. Whilst people are busy arguing against the new school, the plans are being made without those parents consultation and without those parents making any specific objections. If everyone was paying attention to what is inevitably going to happen then there would be more pressure on them to make changes to their ideas, making it safer for the children for example.

I agree with Spiral.

There is talk of the government putting up £2million to pay for a bridge and footpath through the valley/woods up to the new school. I understand that this isnt set in stone by any means though.

I wholeheartedly agree that safety is a priority. I also agree that plans are being made without parental consultation and without the full range of parents affected making any specific objections or recommendations, purely because they dont know.

Do people want this bridge? Have people been asked if they would prefer for their children to use a bridge and for children to walk to school through the woods or for their children to walk to school using main roads and tarmac footpaths with street lighting etc? Is the bridge planned to be tarmac/lit, if so I wonder what ramblers/those protecting the valley think to the development.

I would prefer to know that the bridge is planned because people/users have asked for it and made it known that they would use it. I personally would expect that if the gvt did give a handout of £2 million then this would be better spent on crossings/pelicans at various hotspots identified at various other locations which would have a greater benefit to a wider number of people and would be used far more than just en mass twice a day.

To me personally, the bridge is being used as a sticking plaster and is not a solution. People need to know that providing a bridge just one factor/issue among many. People/parents/the public need to be made aware of what is happening across the board at all locations and they need to know that money being spent is giving "best value" to the communities/taxpayers.

I
I wholeheartedly agree that safety is a priority. I also agree that plans are being made without parental consultation and without the full range of parents affected making any specific objections or recommendations, purely because they dont know.

Do people want this bridge? Have people been asked if they would prefer for their children to use a bridge and for children to walk to school through the woods or for their children to walk to school using main roads and tarmac footpaths with street lighting etc?

TBH The Chavs, a lot of this was discussed at the area panel hosted consultation workshop on the planning brief in November.

This was a public meeting widely advertised and IMO based on the number of people openly demanding information I thought poorly attended. :|

As Joe Taylor said in his letter to the Star yesterday that meeting was the most positive step so far towards working together for a safe new school, and all the transport and logistical ideas were debated at that workshop. Indeed pedestrian crossings on Rivelin valley road were raised as a necessity at this workshop and I am led to believe this has been taken on board as something to be included.

Consultation and information sharing is being made available, however, for some it is far easier to be in the dark and blindly object rather than contribute to solutions.

TBH The Chavs, a lot of this was discussed at the area panel hosted consultation workshop on the planning brief in November.

This was a public meeting widely advertised and IMO based on the number of people openly demanding information I thought poorly attended. :|

Consultation and information sharing is being made available, however, for some it is far easier to be in the dark and blindly object rather than contribute to solutions.

Fox, how well attended are any area panel meeting by the public!!! Just because people dont turn out doesnt mean they dont care. Because this was discussed at one meeting and people had the chance to have their say then does this mean they cannot have an opinion now and theyve missed the boat. You need to remember that alot of people are wary of consultations in this area as they believe that the original consultations by the previous administration were a bit of a sham (to coin a phrase Ive heard). Many felt and still feel they were not listened to then so why waste their time further.

In my opinion all input is useful. You cannot just dismiss anyone that objects now by saying its easier for them to object than contribute. It seems that this is the way this thread has gone. I would still rather take the stance that you inform as many as possible constantly and continually and hopefully you will engage more and more people.

I agree with Spiral.

There is talk of the government putting up £2million to pay for a bridge and footpath through the valley/woods up to the new school. I understand that this isnt set in stone by any means though.

I wholeheartedly agree that safety is a priority. I also agree that plans are being made without parental consultation and without the full range of parents affected making any specific objections or recommendations, purely because they dont know.

Do people want this bridge? Have people been asked if they would prefer for their children to use a bridge and for children to walk to school through the woods or for their children to walk to school using main roads and tarmac footpaths with street lighting etc? Is the bridge planned to be tarmac/lit, if so I wonder what ramblers/those protecting the valley think to the development.

I would prefer to know that the bridge is planned because people/users have asked for it and made it known that they would use it. I personally would expect that if the gvt did give a handout of £2 million then this would be better spent on crossings/pelicans at various hotspots identified at various other locations which would have a greater benefit to a wider number of people and would be used far more than just en mass twice a day.

To me personally, the bridge is being used as a sticking plaster and is not a solution. People need to know that providing a bridge just one factor/issue among many. People/parents/the public need to be made aware of what is happening across the board at all locations and they need to know that money being spent is giving "best value" to the communities/taxpayers.

A questionnaire has gone round pupils of Wisewood Secondary asking if they would use a bridge - but to be honest this is not good enough - the majority of pupils at Wisewood Secondary wont be using the 'new school' anyway.

Parents need to be asked and also the loxley park community needs consulting.

Its no good just holding area panel meetings that arent that well advertised - Also the description of the agenda of the meetings arent that good also.

It would be better to send out a questionnaire to all feeder school parents to return to school with regards to the bridge and ask for any other suggestions - this way people are far more likely to respond than having to go out in the cold at night!!

My suggestion would be to scrap the bridge idea and spend £2m on crossings and making the route to the 'new school' safer for the children.

My suggestion would be to scrap the bridge idea and spend £2m on crossings and making the route to the 'new school' safer for the children.

Careful there girl, this is bordering on contributing to solutions. There are those that just think you blindly object without offering alternatives or because your totally in the dark. :hihi::hihi:

Sorry Harry - you have me mistaken for someone else - a lot of people on here know who I am and can say from the picture that I wasnt there!!

That's fine. Hope your child was oK anyway.

My suggestion would be to scrap the bridge idea and spend £2m on crossings and making the route to the 'new school' safer for the children.

An excellent idea Loopy. I hope you have afound a way to feed in this very positive suggestion. Please keep these coming as I'm sue that they will help rather than hinder - it's this sort of suggestion and ideas rather than outright opposition that will really help those invovled, I am sure. :thumbsup:

An excellent idea Loopy.

Where's my credit Harryarwen?? Shame on you. See my post 656 (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=4405394&postcount=656). :hihi:

Is there still any discussion over providing a school bus? A bus with certain meeting points would be an excellent way of getting some of the students to school safely.

Where's my credit Harryarwen?? Shame on you. See my post 656 (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=4405394&postcount=656). :hihi:

Sorry Chavs, of course anyone should be credited who is begining to think of solutions that will make it all work rather than just downright opposition that is not helpful. If there are other solutions to a bridge, as a number of people here are suggesting then those developing the proposal at the LEA and beyond do need to take very careful consideration of what is being said. Thanks Chavs - of course you have credit! Cheers. :thumbsup:

An excellent idea Loopy. I hope you have afound a way to feed in this very positive suggestion. Please keep these coming as I'm sue that they will help rather than hinder - it's this sort of suggestion and ideas rather than outright opposition that will really help those invovled, I am sure. :thumbsup:

Dont get me wrong harry, Im still in opposition to the 'new school' - but just incase it does go ahead I will fight the bridge idea to the death!!!

Anybody else who is opposed to the bridge idea should oppose this now!!

See harry, I can work with others for the same outcome, just not for the school.

Careful there girl, this is bordering on contributing to solutions. There are those that just think you blindly object without offering alternatives or because your totally in the dark. :hihi::hihi:

Sorry Chavs, I slipped up there, I really dont know what im talking about - I havent been campaigning for the last 2 years on this merger so I dont really know what its all about :hihi::hihi:

I would really like to know who came up with the silly idea of the bridge ?
Yes i know the "proposing group" Thought about a bridge - but was it labour party that led them to this idea?

One thing is for sure more and more will be against it and i feel it will open up a big can of worms !!

Why should myers/wisewood get £2million from government towards bridge and crossings and other schools not etc etc - you see my point ?
Lib Dems are on danger ground i feel !!

Anouther point
I would like to add .if the new school goes ahead . Would some parents campaign for bradfield school to be made alot bigger? so it would give parents more of a choice , i feel
alot of parents would like to send there children to bradfield if they could.

Im sure i read at sometime that the old pinegrove club site could not be built on because of toxic stuff under the site (sheffield star) , would we want our children going near this site after crossing the bridge?
in fact is the area around the site safe ? just thought i would point this out
if anyone knows anymore about this by all means let us all know

Try this http://www.loxleyvalley.com/wordfiles/Pinegrove%20appeal%20decision.doc there is a bit about the building being built on a former tip.

Im sure i read at sometime that the old pinegrove club site could not be built on because of toxic stuff under the site (sheffield star) , would we want our children going near this site after crossing the bridge?
in fact is the area around the site safe ? just thought i would point this out
if anyone knows anymore about this by all means let us all know

Barmy, an entire town is about being built on a tip at the moment, and so long as proper measures are taken I don't see that being an issue.

Barmy, an entire town is about being built on a tip at the moment, and so long as proper measures are taken I don't see that being an issue.

Cyanide search


A FORMER toxic waste tip where up to 300 barrels of lethal cyanide are feared to be buried is to undergo soil testing to check for poison.

A massive fire destroyed the disused Pinegrove Country Club earlier this month, which stands on the site in Stannington.
The barrels of sodium cyanide are believed to have been dumped more than 30 years ago. The substance can be fatal if inhaled or swallowed and when decomposing can turn into toxic and highly flammable hydrogen cyanide gas.
The work must be carried out before proposals to build 46 homes and a children's play area on the land are considered.
Sheffield Council has told developers they must provide an in-depth analysis of the ground beneath and around the former Pinegrove Club as part of their planning application.
A full risk assessment, toxicology report, and any proposals for remedial works to make the land safe for building, must be made before plans can be considered, say council bosses.
Capricorn Homes Ltd has submitted an application to build a small housing estate on the former tip. It wants to build 34 townhouses around a central square and 12 fronting Myers Grove Lane. Most of the properties would have four or five bedrooms.
The company has acknowledged the work needs to be done. In a report in support of its application it says: "The whole site is located on a contaminated waste tip and as such requires remediation prior to any future development and to prevent further discharge of contaminants into the River Loxley."
The land is officially earmarked as a contaminated site, although nobody is sure what the tip contains.
Locals say illegal tipping was rife in the late 1960s and 1970s when a former site gatekeeper, nicknamed 'Cyanide Sid' was in the pub.
One resident, David Wilson, aged 61, of Stannington Road, said he witnessed the cyanide tipping more than 30 years ago, although he didn't realise what it was at the time.
He said: "It came in black canisters about two and a half feet tall with skull and crossbones and the word 'Verboten' written on. There were hundreds of them piled up and some had split open. White cyanide pellets that looked like torpedo sweets skewed about like confetti. The next thing we knew they were all buried."
There was a major alert in 1972 when a lorry driver phoned police to say his son had dumped a load at the site. Police sealed off the land and found 10 barrels containing sodium cyanide.
Sodium cyanide is used in the steel industry, but can be turned into a deadly nerve agent used by international terrorists to produce sarin, which can cause paralysis and instant death.The Department of the Environment decided it was safe to leave what was still buried underground to decompose by natural biological reaction. Tests on water on the River Loxley proved the area to be safe.
Eventually the whole site was covered with soil and levelled and the Pinegrove Club was built on part of the land in 1981.
Today, Stannington Lib Dem councillor David Baker said he wanted to know what was dumped there: "I have asked council officers for full information surrounding the background of this site and what is going to be done. The law on contaminated land has changed since the 1970s and I want to be assured that the considerations of local people will be put first."
Over the years, bullets and various other military scrap has also been found on the site by children.

hope this helps foxy

Also add to the above some reasons why planning was turned down apart from green belt -was the banks subsidance so looking at the above and alot of the reasons in the planning .i feel there could be a strong case for NO footbridge in my opinion maybe !

not sure also what damage the floods did to the river banks but would you really risk your children crossing on the footbridge when reading the above and why planning application was turned down ?? (just thought i would point this out foxy!!!) and to all really

But dont worry i mean im sure the labour sheffield council at the time and proposing group know all of the above and are wanting to share the information to all local feeder schools and parents!!!!

LIB DEMS PUBLIC CONSULTATION PLEASE ????

Regarding the tip,30 odd years ago I worked at Woods forge and at dinner time we used to go across the river and have a scrounge round on the tip.All manner of stuff was being dumped on this site.Old medicines ,plastic ,foam carpet ,wood ,you name and it was on this tip.

Regarding the tip,30 odd years ago I worked at Woods forge and at dinner time we used to go across the river and have a scrounge round on the tip.All manner of stuff was being dumped on this site.Old medicines ,plastic ,foam carpet ,wood ,you name and it was on this tip.

So this bridge idea sounds really safe for the children then:hihi::hihi:

I cant really see the bridge idea solving the traffic problems anyway!!!

Also add to the above some reasons why planning was turned down apart from green belt -was the banks subsidance so looking at the above and alot of the reasons in the planning .i feel there could be a strong case for NO footbridge in my opinion maybe !

not sure also what damage the floods did to the river banks but would you really risk your children crossing on the footbridge when reading the above and why planning application was turned down ?? (just thought i would point this out foxy!!!) and to all really

But dont worry i mean im sure the labour sheffield council at the time and proposing group know all of the above and are wanting to share the information to all local feeder schools and parents!!!!

LIB DEMS PUBLIC CONSULTATION PLEASE ????

Think it would be good to perhaps get letters out about the points i made , ive sent a email to a proposing group member BUT yet again no reply:mad:
Perhaps they can put something on here etc

will be nice to see them start building

Think it would be good to perhaps get letters out about the points i made , ive sent a email to a proposing group member BUT yet again no reply:mad:
Perhaps they can put something on here etc

I'm sure that if you have followed previous answers to this Barmy you will realise from what I have read and actually know about the Proposing group that they are not going to engage with those who attempt to raise negative points. The repeated answer to your questions and any similar ones will be that the Proposing group is happy to engage with anyone who wants to positively further the development and implementation of the newly merged school. That is the Proposing groups Mission, Vision, Aim and Objective, AND what they are charged with doing. Any debate that seeks to take time and energy away from this group of volunteers (recognising you are a volunteer also Barmy) is time not spent on fulfilling the Mission and therefore not furthering the development of ther new school.

However, should you turn your comments and questions around into initially raising a concern and THEN proposing a possible outcome to the question (other than the non development of the merged school) then I am sure you will be met with a much more positive response and indeed a response in the first place!

And just to clarify - I have no responsibility for answering any questions to the proposing group so this is my own opinion and not representative of anyone else - It just seems very logical to me that those charged with moving forward would not engage with those who are determined to oppose and block at every stage. :)

I’ve been away again, but now returned to catch up on Wisewood/Myers saga. O dear.

Nearly 12 months ago, I started the predecessor to this thread (W/M Merger 2 – which I can’t seem to access for some reason) by suggesting that SOCS’ claims about the potential success of their Judicial Review were fantasy.

I wrote:
To put it bluntly, the Judge is saying ‘you don’t even have the basis of an arguable case which would justify a hearing.’ So, unless the Judge had lost all the paperwork, there doesn’t appear to be a cat in hell’s chance of the legal proceedings going any further.

In addition, the last sentence [Furthermore, the delay in bringing these proceedings has not been justified.] is what is known in the trade as a ‘judicial kicking’. The judge is saying ‘there’s no reason why you didn’t make your application much earlier; it has all the hallmarks of a fruitless application which you’ve made as late as possible, probably in an attempt to pressurise the defendant and get publicity for your case.’

Loopylulu and others have persisted in their confidence about the outcome, despite all the evidence suggesting otherwise.

On 29th September, I again suggested that the Judicial Review was dead in the water and on 23rd October offered a £100 bet that there would be no Judicial Review.

Unsurprisingly to me – because it was absolutely clear that there wouldn’t be one – no-one took me up on the offer. However, Barmyowls responded cryptically by saying ‘Perhaps the legal case isn’t about a Judicial Review anymore.’

Now, the appeal against the Judge’s decision not to allow a hearing of SOCS’ application – because there was no arguable case – was listed to be heard on December 5th. Then it was removed from the list.

Either SOCS finally accepted that there was no case – and they’ve simply been stringing this along for publicity purposes – and withdrew. To put it bluntly, Loopylulu has been ‘all fur coat and no knickers’.

Or, they’ve done a deal with the City Council.

Whichever it is, we all ought to be told about it.

And, Loopylulu has told us (#626) that ‘when the legal action is finished, anybody who wants to see all the files can ask me and I can arrange for them to see them.’

It’s finished. When and how can we see them?

However, should you turn your comments and questions around into initially raising a concern and THEN proposing a possible outcome to the question (other than the non development of the merged school) then I am sure you will be met with a much more positive response and indeed a response in the first place!

And just to clarify - I have no responsibility for answering any questions to the proposing group so this is my own opinion and not representative of anyone else - It just seems very logical to me that those charged with moving forward would not engage with those who are determined to oppose and block at every stage. :)

Raising Concern with the merger ? Thats what has been done all along with little or no answers to them !!
If i email my concern to proposing group perhaps at least i would get a reply or something ???
As a parent i have a right to raise Concerns of my and other childrens saftey
As others have a right to answer the questions put to them about these Concerns

I note as of now Theres been ONE post by the "proposing group" -user name
Is this helping at all ?
I have to agree that NOT all members of the communitiy has access to the Net but by letting us know the answers to the concerns on a public forum may help US all in the long run

Unsurprisingly to me – because it was absolutely clear that there wouldn’t be one – no-one took me up on the offer. However, Barmyowls responded cryptically by saying ‘Perhaps the legal case isn’t about a Judicial Review anymore.’


Either SOCS finally accepted that there was no case – and they’ve simply been stringing this along for publicity purposes – and withdrew. To put it bluntly, Loopylulu has been ‘all fur coat and no knickers’.

Or, they’ve done a deal with the City Council.

Whichever it is, we all ought to be told about it.



Im sure the council would have no need for there legal team if "As You say it was stringing this along" Would they??

And yes Perhaps theres a legal case not to do with the Judicial Review anymore as i stated!!!

And YES YES YES a deal has been done with Sheffield lib dem council ill state that now!!! with good results in a way for SOCS and a benifit to its communitiy -(got you thinking now):hihi:

Harry -im sure with his contacts will state what the deal was -or you could ask the lib dem council if you wish ?

And i can also state - SOCS FIGHT GOES ON. hope thats clear to all who views this topic :thumbsup:

However, should you turn your comments and questions around into initially raising a concern and THEN proposing a possible outcome to the question (other than the non development of the merged school) then I am sure you will be met with a much more positive response and indeed a response in the first place!

:)
1/
The substance can be fatal if inhaled or swallowed and when decomposing can turn into toxic and highly flammable hydrogen cyanide gas.

2/
Sodium cyanide is used in the steel industry, but can be turned into a deadly nerve agent used by international terrorists to produce sarin, which can cause paralysis and instant death.

3/
I want to be assured that the considerations of local people will be put first."
Over the years, bullets and various other military scrap has also been found on the site by children.

As a former builder myself - i understand how land has to be tested etc and areas ,banks etc so the concerns need to be answerd - but if the bridge idea is being forced on us by the proposing group as it seems then i want to know what tests have been done and why have they not shared this with all the communities - OR is it a case of like so many things well this is a negative thing and if we ignore it and just think possative things will be great !!!

Yes i do have concerns as i would have thought you would
As for the rest of the planning -well lets just say EVERYTHING will have to be done right as we also have someone on the case for every step -(good to have contacts in the building trade i say)

I’ve been away again, but now returned to catch up on Wisewood/Myers saga. O dear.

Nearly 12 months ago, I started the predecessor to this thread (W/M Merger 2 – which I can’t seem to access for some reason) by suggesting that SOCS’ claims about the potential success of their Judicial Review were fantasy.

I wrote:
To put it bluntly, the Judge is saying ‘you don’t even have the basis of an arguable case which would justify a hearing.’ So, unless the Judge had lost all the paperwork, there doesn’t appear to be a cat in hell’s chance of the legal proceedings going any further.

In addition, the last sentence [Furthermore, the delay in bringing these proceedings has not been justified.] is what is known in the trade as a ‘judicial kicking’. The judge is saying ‘there’s no reason why you didn’t make your application much earlier; it has all the hallmarks of a fruitless application which you’ve made as late as possible, probably in an attempt to pressurise the defendant and get publicity for your case.’

Loopylulu and others have persisted in their confidence about the outcome, despite all the evidence suggesting otherwise.

On 29th September, I again suggested that the Judicial Review was dead in the water and on 23rd October offered a £100 bet that there would be no Judicial Review.

Unsurprisingly to me – because it was absolutely clear that there wouldn’t be one – no-one took me up on the offer. However, Barmyowls responded cryptically by saying ‘Perhaps the legal case isn’t about a Judicial Review anymore.’

Now, the appeal against the Judge’s decision not to allow a hearing of SOCS’ application – because there was no arguable case – was listed to be heard on December 5th. Then it was removed from the list.

Either SOCS finally accepted that there was no case – and they’ve simply been stringing this along for publicity purposes – and withdrew. To put it bluntly, Loopylulu has been ‘all fur coat and no knickers’.

Or, they’ve done a deal with the City Council.

Whichever it is, we all ought to be told about it.

And, Loopylulu has told us (#626) that ‘when the legal action is finished, anybody who wants to see all the files can ask me and I can arrange for them to see them.’

It’s finished. When and how can we see them?

I would be quite happy for you to meet up with me to show you the files from the legal case - you would then see that I am not 'all fur coat and no knickers'.

1/
The substance can be fatal if inhaled or swallowed and when decomposing can turn into toxic and highly flammable hydrogen cyanide gas.

2/
Sodium cyanide is used in the steel industry, but can be turned into a deadly nerve agent used by international terrorists to produce sarin, which can cause paralysis and instant death.

3/
I want to be assured that the considerations of local people will be put first."
Over the years, bullets and various other military scrap has also been found on the site by children.

As a former builder myself - i understand how land has to be tested etc and areas ,banks etc so the concerns need to be answerd - but if the bridge idea is being forced on us by the proposing group as it seems then i want to know what tests have been done and why have they not shared this with all the communities - OR is it a case of like so many things well this is a negative thing and if we ignore it and just think possative things will be great !!!

Yes i do have concerns as i would have thought you would
As for the rest of the planning -well lets just say EVERYTHING will have to be done right as we also have someone on the case for every step -(good to have contacts in the building trade i say)

I honestly have to say that this is getting to the point of you potentially (ie not exactly accusing you!!) being vexatious in order to score points. It is good to see your technical knowledge of course, but do you really expect a group of volunteer parents and others who are working to propose the new school to answer you on such technical points? Are you not just seeking to score points against the Proposing Group by expecting them to answer?

Anybody reading this thread with a modicum of knowledge would and will realise that your questions are posed at the totally wrong group. The Proposing Group are working strategically to develop the new school however, operationally, the detail lies with the LEA, with planners, with the LEA experts, with BSF who are funding etc etc.

Why keep trying to score CHEAP points against the Proposing group, expecting them, to answer your detailed questions, when cleary they need to be addressed directly to the LEA? I would suggest that rather than wasting your time in emailing Propoosing group to try and score weak and futile points, you address these DIRECTLY to the relevant LEA dept - Planning and Devlopment.

If you choose to PM me, I'll give you the name of the LEA contact responsible who should and would be avaiable to answer all these technical points that you are asking to be clarified or considered!! :huh:

Raising Concern with the merger ? Thats what has been done all along with little or no answers to them !!
If i email my concern to proposing group perhaps at least i would get a reply or something ???
As a parent i have a right to raise Concerns of my and other childrens saftey
As others have a right to answer the questions put to them about these Concerns

I note as of now Theres been ONE post by the "proposing group" -user name
Is this helping at all ?
I have to agree that NOT all members of the communitiy has access to the Net but by letting us know the answers to the concerns on a public forum may help US all in the long run

I think that mky reply and previous ones and ky new one have answered that once and for all. To reiterate for you, as you have clelary not understood - tchnical questions need to be addressed to the LEA directly - to those working and paid to work now to develop the new site and all concerned about it, from planning to architecture etc etc.

Again to reitearte to make it pretty clear - the Proposing group I am sure fulfills a strategic function - an overview to deliver the newly merged school,. They are therefore unable I would guess, to andswer any techincal questions. As far as I can see, any operational questions, such as those you are asking, should be directed to LEA officers who have the necessary skills and expertise to answer you - Please start making use of them and please feedback on their reposnes to you on this Forum for all to see. It would be good to see that you are making use of this advice and in fact, not just seeking to score points!! -and not the vexatious comments about a group who are clearly not in a position to answer such technical operational questions!! :huh:

What is this deal that SOCS and the council have agreed?

And when the two 'groups' have finished bickering between themselves...we might get somewhere ;)

will be nice to see them start building

You are obviously for the merger yet you don't seem to offer any solutions to the problems being discussed? How do you feel about your children crossing the proposed bridge or trying to make it safely over the very busy one way system?

I honestly have to say that this is getting to the point of you potentially (ie not exactly accusing you!!) being vexatious in order to score points. It is good to see your technical knowledge of course, but do you really expect a group of volunteer parents and others who are working to propose the new school to answer you on such technical points? Are you not just seeking to score points against the Proposing Group by expecting them to answer?

Anybody reading this thread with a modicum of knowledge would and will realise that your questions are posed at the totally wrong group. The Proposing Group are working strategically to develop the new school however, operationally, the detail lies with the LEA, with planners, with the LEA experts, with BSF who are funding etc etc.

Why keep trying to score CHEAP points against the Proposing group, expecting them, to answer your detailed questions, when cleary they need to be addressed directly to the LEA? I would suggest that rather than wasting your time in emailing Propoosing group to try and score weak and futile points, you address these DIRECTLY to the relevant LEA dept - Planning and Devlopment.

If you choose to PM me, I'll give you the name of the LEA contact responsible who should and would be avaiable to answer all these technical points that you are asking to be clarified or considered!! :huh:


Nobody is trying to score points at all, Harry!!

It is quite worrying though about the toxic waste on the pinegrove country club site - yet there has been no response from the proposing group (governing body I think they are now according to their new leaflet) with regards to any of the serious concerns that people have - they seem willing to go on with the plans for the 'new school' regardless of the potential hazards!!

The proposing group (governing body) should go back to the LEA with regards to the potential hazards as the proposing group (governing body) are the main contact point for the public NOT LEA as it will be the proposing group (governing body) that will be running the 'new school'!!

And when the two 'groups' have finished bickering between themselves...we might get somewhere ;)

I would not say its bickering just debates on subjects of the merger

I honestly have to say that this is getting to the point of you potentially (ie not exactly accusing you!!) being vexatious in order to score points. It is good to see your technical knowledge of course, but do you really expect a group of volunteer parents and others who are working to propose the new school to answer you on such technical points? Are you not just seeking to score points against the Proposing Group by expecting them to answer?

Anybody reading this thread with a modicum of knowledge would and will realise that your questions are posed at the totally wrong group. The Proposing Group are working strategically to develop the new school however, operationally, the detail lies with the LEA, with planners, with the LEA experts, with BSF who are funding etc etc.

Why keep trying to score CHEAP points against the Proposing group, expecting them, to answer your detailed questions, when cleary they need to be addressed directly to the LEA? I would suggest that rather than wasting your time in emailing Propoosing group to try and score weak and futile points, you address these DIRECTLY to the relevant LEA dept - Planning and Devlopment.

If you choose to PM me, I'll give you the name of the LEA contact responsible who should and would be avaiable to answer all these technical points that you are asking to be clarified or considered!! :huh:

Any answers from the proposing group would be good .
they stated they are working for this new school for us all i.e wisewood and stannington and im sure they have stated if you have any questions to email them . ALOT of parents have emailed them but why do we get no reply ?

if questions are pointed out on here i see nothing wrong with others seeing these questions and others adding there VALID points to this merger after all where most of us are coming from we are parents wanting the best for our children and a safe way to school it seems to me HARRY you just pull every VALID question that is asked and have ago at the user who asked that valid question

anouther point i must add you said you was just a parent at one stage in the merger thread i recall , BUT you been in contact with the proposing group all along why hide this fact for such along time ??

You are obviously for the merger yet you don't seem to offer any solutions to the problems being discussed? How do you feel about your children crossing the proposed bridge or trying to make it safely over the very busy one way system?

i think "spoof" has no solutions to any of the problems Traffic, bridge etc etc
we all are trying to find some solutions to the problems faced but as yet there has been no real solution to any of the problems

I would not say its bickering just debates on subjects of the merger

What has who is answering what emails, or not, and who posts on here the most got to do with a new school exactly? If you stand back it certainly looks like petty bickering between two groups on opposite sites.

i think "spoof" has no solutions to any of the problems Traffic, bridge etc etc
we all are trying to find some solutions to the problems faced but as yet there has been no real solution to any of the problems

How do you know? They haven't said whether they have any suggestions or not, hence the enquiry!

It is a shame there aren't more ideas opinions and especially posters on this thread. It seems to get hounded by the same posters offering no real solutions or ideas. This thread has suprisingly few different posters when there are so many people in Sheffield affected by this, strange that! It's like a set of traffic lights, one says stop the other says go and nobody gets anywhere! We aren't going backwards but aren't moving on either! It appears to me that if a poster asks a question it is one of the 'usual' members that answers it or for someone else (as you did above). Give other people a chance to voice their own opinions.

Is this thread purely about whether or not the new school can go ahead? Can it not include discussion about what we'd like to see inside the new school when it is finished?

Lockers would be good :thumbsup:. Oh and secure bicycle parking :D

You are obviously for the merger yet you don't seem to offer any solutions to the problems being discussed? How do you feel about your children crossing the proposed bridge or trying to make it safely over the very busy one way system?

dont shoot me for posting this, i've not read through the 30-odd pages of replies, as i dont have time, but in my opinion the new school is a good investment, hopefully my future children will be attending it, and as for children getting to the school (as i know that some parents are worried, quite rightly i may add); i managed to get there from the Oughtibridge area for 5 years, and i've never had a problem, and most of the time i walked it all the way. Obviously i dont know the ins and outs of this debate, i just dont think that getting to the school as opposed to getting to Wisewood is such a problem, theres the option of trams, and buses, or the old fashion walking. :) I think that a new school is just what the community needs, and when i have children, their education would be of upmost importance, and i think this school will open lots of doors for them. :)

I'll probably not have time to come back on this post, sorry. But i thought i would just give you something to read XD

How do you know? They haven't said whether they have any suggestions or not, hence the enquiry!


Is this thread purely about whether or not the new school can go ahead? Can it not include discussion about what we'd like to see inside the new school when it is finished?

Lockers would be good :thumbsup:. Oh and secure bicycle parking :D

We all like the school to look nice etc etc if it goes ahead ,
But mine and others childrens saftey is a must getting to this school is it not?

From the off there would be traffic problems if the merger went ahead -and extra air pollution in all the areas near and in malin bridge
Labour council (at the time and after SOCS members asking and asking for them to do one ) did a traffic impact report -this came out bad!!
After all this time theres no solution to this:loopy:

So labour or proposing group came up with a bridge idea- hence needing more money - they forced the bridge idea on us with no real consultation for parents and the homes that live around this area.
its now found out the toxic waste and other dangers on the banks ,if the bridge goes ahead !! also an extra £2million has been given towards this school of our tax payers money

The point is we have never moved on with the dangers our children face getting to the school , in fact Labour council , proposing group have never really answerd the questions put to them

Spiral - SOCS members asked for a meeting to sort some of the points out with the proposing group BUT they did not want any meeting at all !!

YES- socs do want wisewood to stay open (now one of the best in sheffield its said by LEA) but IF the NEW SCHOOL is forced on us in my opinion the traffic problems and other problems should have been sorted long time ago As yet they are not sorted !!!! hence right from the very start and even now the same questions are being asked .
Shop keepers in malin bridge area have not been updated on plans of traffic gridlock , yellow lines ,crossings that could affect there lives, Teachers and staff as of yet have not been told whos going to lose there jobs!!!

You see for such a big big thing . the merger itself is not really sorted - yes we could go on about what colours the school should be, how many trees ,plants we should have outside the school etc etc,
But the point is lets get the basics right first then plan the building it self in my opinion.

Exactly. My point being that whilst ever they are bickering about who is/isn't posting, emailing, answering what, the important things are passing us by. Everyone now need to join together to achieve a positive outcome that most people are happy with.

So labour or proposing group came up with a bridge idea

You really have to get rid of this idea that the Proposing Group is Labour. It isn't. Your local councillors are Lib Dems. The members of the Proposing Group are not Labour Party members. Continuing to try to score political points where none can possibly exist is a sad and pointless exercise.

The Lib Dems are in control of the city and your ward. They are in favour of closing Wisewood and opening up a new school on the Myers Grove site. What is so hard to understand?

You really have to get rid of this idea that the Proposing Group is Labour. It isn't. Your local councillors are Lib Dems. The members of the Proposing Group are not Labour Party members. Continuing to try to score political points where none can possibly exist is a sad and pointless exercise.

The Lib Dems are in control of the city and your ward. They are in favour of closing Wisewood and opening up a new school on the Myers Grove site. What is so hard to understand?

Theres no scoring points, When Labour was in charge of sheffield council They said maybe about a bridge in the consultations!! Alf Meade (labour) stated this would not happen coz of green belt etc.
As i recall Proposing group alot later on the merger seem to go on more about a footbridge and perhaps extra money-Very simple to understand

Lib Dems -well did they not go to london to try stop the merger -only to be blackmailed by the government that they would not get money for all schools in sheffield. (does not sound they was in favour to me)

RosyRat , now if the government Let the lib dems do what they wanted now do you think that lib dems would say Right we want the two school option? or want the merger?
Thats not hard to understand as well!!!!
Oh by the way Local lib dem councillors are still coming to SOCS meetings and still given SOCS ideas to STOP the merger - not sure if that sounds like they are in favour of the merger ill let you decide on that ROSY:thumbsup:

The Lib Dems are in control of the city and your ward. They are in favour of closing Wisewood and opening up a new school on the Myers Grove site. What is so hard to understand?

RosyRat that is very naughty as you know is itsn't correct. The Lib Dems fought hard for a two school option and went to the relevant government minister with their proposal on this matter. The truth is that the Labour government held them to ransom by stating that if the merger didn't go ahead the they wouldn't provide the money for rebuilding other schools in Sheffield. The labour government used the tactics of a playground bully :(

Regarding the role of the Posposing Group; surely they understand peoples perception that they are now the public face of the merger. If questions are referred to them that are not in their remit then they should respond to this effect or refer the questions to the correct body. Not answering questions is not an option with such an emotive subject.

There are lots of concerns and questions regarding the merger but seems to be a lack of information coming from bodies involved. I would ask them to all step up to their responsibilities regarding to communications, it would also be useful if they all piblished what their roles are with the merger.

I assume the Lib Dem council could keep the status quo, if they wanted.
In other words leave everything as it is now. Thus keeping both Wiswewood
and Myersgrove open and just carrying out repairs as and when necessary,
or is that just pie in the sky?

Regarding the role of the Posposing Group; surely they understand peoples perception that they are now the public face of the merger. If questions are referred to them that are not in their remit then they should respond to this effect or refer the questions to the correct body. Not answering questions is not an option with such an emotive subject.

If you read Harry Arwen's post 686, you'll see that this is exactly what he did. Even offering to send details by pm.

No, the government did not blackmail the new Lib Dem administration. They merely stated the same case they had been stating for months. That money for one state of the art school would be forthcoming, but not money for 2 schools. If the Council wanted to press ahead with refurbishing 2 schools, then the money would have to come from the current Education budget which, of course, has to cover all the schools in shefield.

No blackmail, just a repetition of the facts which the Labour Council had been telling them since the decision to rebuild had been taken.

If you read Harry Arwen's post 686, you'll see that this is exactly what he did. Even offering to send details by pm.

No, the government did not blackmail the new Lib Dem administration. They merely stated the same case they had been stating for months. That money for one state of the art school would be forthcoming, but not money for 2 schools. If the Council wanted to press ahead with refurbishing 2 schools, then the money would have to come from the current Education budget which, of course, has to cover all the schools in shefield.

No blackmail, just a repetition of the facts which the Labour Council had been telling them since the decision to rebuild had been taken.

Im sorry but you are wrong there!!

The Lib Dems WERE blackmailed - the whole of the BSF money for Sheffield would have been withheld by the labour government if the Lib Dems did not go ahead with the merger of Wisewood/Myers, that is what was said at the meeting that Paul Scriven had with Jim Knight - this you should full well know.

I assume the Lib Dem council could keep the status quo, if they wanted.
In other words leave everything as it is now. Thus keeping both Wiswewood
and Myersgrove open and just carrying out repairs as and when necessary,
or is that just pie in the sky?

See post 704, this explains what would happen if the schools would be left as they are!!!

Im sorry but you are wrong there!!

The Lib Dems WERE blackmailed - the whole of the BSF money for Sheffield would have been withheld by the labour government if the Lib Dems did not go ahead with the merger of Wisewood/Myers, that is what was said at the meeting that Paul Scriven had with Jim Knight - this you should full well know.

Yes, I do know. This is exactly what I said in my post. The BSF money would be allocated for the building of one state-of-the-art school. If the Council (Labour, Lib Dem or any other party in power) decided to refurbish 2 schools, then the BSF money would not apply and the money for the refurbishment would have to come out of the existing Education budget.

I repeat, that is exactly what I said. And, this is exactly what the government said to the Labour Council and this is why they went for the one-school option. This isn't blackmail. It was what was said to the Labour Council and this is why it was so wrong of the Lib Dems to campaign to keep both schools open. It was never going to happen with BSF money. And it didn't.

You are obviously for the merger yet you don't seem to offer any solutions to the problems being discussed? How do you feel about your children crossing the proposed bridge or trying to make it safely over the very busy one way system?

I for one am absolutely happy that my children could cross this bridge, or failing that, walk via the streets. After all, how many deaths have been reportted alread of kids walking to Myers? I would be realy interested to hear this statistic 'cos, forgive me please if I'm wrong, but I'm not aware that Malin Bridge is a recognised accident black spot for kids?

Im sorry but you are wrong there!!

The Lib Dems WERE blackmailed - the whole of the BSF money for Sheffield would have been withheld by the labour government if the Lib Dems did not go ahead with the merger of Wisewood/Myers, that is what was said at the meeting that Paul Scriven had with Jim Knight - this you should full well know.

In order to stop this cantekerous and bitter debate, I openly invite the local Lib dem councillors - Steve Ayris and Joe Taylor, plus Cabinet member Andy Sangar and Lib dem Leader Paul Scriven, to reply publically on the Forum about their recent, in the last few months statement, that they fully now support the merger as the only way forward for these 2 schools, having fulfilled the party pledge (remember, a party that I am a member of!) to TRY to deliver the 2 school options. The words of the new Director, Sonia Sharpe are public, and even I know that Nick Clegg has attended a meeting of the Proposing group in the last few weeks. The political fallout just does not seem to apply any more as suggested by others.

If it does though, and my local politicians are giveing out messages of hope to SOCS and others that oppose the merger, then my locally appointed politicians need to explain this course of action, which seems absolutely contradicatory to messages being given to those accountable for delivery of the new school! We really do need to dispel some of these myths once and for all in order to progress in a sane and coordinated way. Steve and Joe - I know you read this thread - please clarify!! Harryarwen

If you read Harry Arwen's post 686, you'll see that this is exactly what he did. Even offering to send details by pm.

No, the government did not blackmail the new Lib Dem administration. They merely stated the same case they had been stating for months. That money for one state of the art school would be forthcoming, but not money for 2 schools. If the Council wanted to press ahead with refurbishing 2 schools, then the money would have to come from the current Education budget which, of course, has to cover all the schools in shefield.

No blackmail, just a repetition of the facts which the Labour Council had been telling them since the decision to rebuild had been taken.

Just to clarify for all reading - no PM recevied from anyone at all since this posting!! - Speaks volumes, methinks!!

Any answers from the proposing group would be good .
they stated they are working for this new school for us all i.e wisewood and stannington and im sure they have stated if you have any questions to email them . ALOT of parents have emailed them but why do we get no reply ?

if questions are pointed out on here i see nothing wrong with others seeing these questions and others adding there VALID points to this merger after all where most of us are coming from we are parents wanting the best for our children and a safe way to school it seems to me HARRY you just pull every VALID question that is asked and have ago at the user who asked that valid question

anouther point i must add you said you was just a parent at one stage in the merger thread i recall , BUT you been in contact with the proposing group all along why hide this fact for such along time ??

Perhaps you have chose not to read my post onj this issue fully? It makes absolute;y clear why I believe that the proposing group will not reply to your emails - It even offers you a way to ensure that your questions are responded to by offering somthing positive and/or by PM'ing me for further details - which you have not done to date!

As for your personal comments - I'm picking up on this thread more and more that local people are getting absolytely tired of this point scoring - so - in order to clarify - as I've said numerous times before, whilst I might have contact/membership or whatever of any group invovled with the merger or with either school or with the current locapl geornment administration, my responses on here, on this Forum are as a parent of kids at Wisewood and beyond, and NOT thopse of any representative of any group! I think this has been explicit throughout, not contradictory, and I cannot understand why you keep failing to recognise this!

I am also aware that the Proposing group are working very closely with Sheffield City Council to ensure that the SCC address the transport issurs that are being highlighted on this thread. I am aware recently of a recommendation that the Governing body of the new school hould lobby to ensure that the recommendations that were contained in the Mott McDonald Traffic Impact Assessment are caried out. That is why I keep referring all those who would apporach any "parent" body like the Proposing group or the Governing body back to Sheffield City Council as they are the ones who need to deliver this. If those posting in opposition did their homework instead of scaremongering, they would find the documentation that suggests that there might well be £2 million avaiable to create a sustainable plan for travel access to the new school. I ca't offer further links to this as it is yet unconfirmed, but I am sure that those posting here with the necessary resource could follow up and then have the decency to come back and confirm that this is accurate!

Yes, I do know. This is exactly what I said in my post. The BSF money would be allocated for the building of one state-of-the-art school. If the Council (Labour, Lib Dem or any other party in power) decided to refurbish 2 schools, then the BSF money would not apply and the money for the refurbishment would have to come out of the existing Education budget.

I repeat, that is exactly what I said. And, this is exactly what the government said to the Labour Council and this is why they went for the one-school option. This isn't blackmail. It was what was said to the Labour Council and this is why it was so wrong of the Lib Dems to campaign to keep both schools open. It was never going to happen with BSF money. And it didn't.

No Rosy, thats not what your post said - you implied that only the money for the merger would be unavailable when in reality it was the whole BSF money for Sheffield that the government were going to withhold!!

In order to stop this cantekerous and bitter debate, I openly invite the local Lib dem councillors - Steve Ayris and Joe Taylor, plus Cabinet member Andy Sangar and Lib dem Leader Paul Scriven, to reply publically on the Forum about their recent, in the last few months statement, that they fully now support the merger as the only way forward for these 2 schools, having fulfilled the party pledge (remember, a party that I am a member of!) to TRY to deliver the 2 school options. The words of the new Director, Sonia Sharpe are public, and even I know that Nick Clegg has attended a meeting of the Proposing group in the last few weeks. The political fallout just does not seem to apply any more as suggested by others.

If it does though, and my local politicians are giveing out messages of hope to SOCS and others that oppose the merger, then my locally appointed politicians need to explain this course of action, which seems absolutely contradicatory to messages being given to those accountable for delivery of the new school! We really do need to dispel some of these myths once and for all in order to progress in a sane and coordinated way. Steve and Joe - I know you read this thread - please clarify!! Harryarwen

I can safely say that the Lib Dems have got to go with the merger or else they would have risked the BSF money for the whole of Sheffield - this I cannot blame them for - but they do still attend the SOCS meetings!!!

Just to clarify for all reading - no PM recevied from anyone at all since this posting!! - Speaks volumes, methinks!!

And I can understand why - the questions will be sent to the proposing group (governing body) of the 'new school' not someone of the forum!!

It would be nice if the proposing group (governing body) could do what they are supposed to and answer emails, whether to state that they are dealing with the email or have passed it onto the relevant department - after all on all the newletters about the new school - they do state to contact them and not harryarwen on Sheffield Forum!!

If you read Harry Arwen's post 686, you'll see that this is exactly what he did. Even offering to send details by pm.

No, the government did not blackmail the new Lib Dem administration. They merely stated the same case they had been stating for months. That money for one state of the art school would be forthcoming, but not money for 2 schools. If the Council wanted to press ahead with refurbishing 2 schools, then the money would have to come from the current Education budget which, of course, has to cover all the schools in shefield.

No blackmail, just a repetition of the facts which the Labour Council had been telling them since the decision to rebuild had been taken.

Did lib dems offer Two options to keep both schools open ??
Both of them turned down by government

If those posting in opposition did their homework instead of scaremongering, they would find the documentation that suggests that there might well be £2 million avaiable to create a sustainable plan for travel access to the new school. I ca't offer further links to this as it is yet unconfirmed, but I am sure that those posting here with the necessary resource could follow up and then have the decency to come back and confirm that this is accurate!

It would be good for us all if you could put links on. and how you are getting the information you are getting .as you just say your a parent but alot of parents dont seem to be getting the same information you are getting ?

So please help other parents to get the same information you are getting and where from?

I also think you have to really look back on your own posts about point scoring if this is what you want to go on about ,i would just like to stick to the merger topic myself

but still lets go back to the bridge and traffic problems shall we and get input on that
Those that want the merger on here do seem to avoid this topic alot dont they?

I would be quite happy for you to meet up with me to show you the files from the legal case - you would then see that I am not 'all fur coat and no knickers'.

Loopylulu

Thank you for the offer. Unfortunately, my holidays and then work are again going to take me out of Sheffield for a while. Perhaps I can arrange for someone from my solicitors to come and take a look in the new year if I'm going to continue to be away.

I'm sure others may want to take up the offer.

However, this also confirms that legal proceedings are at an end, doesn't it?

So, can we all be told:

has the appeal against the judgement that there was no case for a judicial review been withdrawn by SOCS?
what, if anything, is the nature of any agreement between the City Council and SOCS in relation to this?
who is bearing the costs of the failed legal proceedings?

The Lib Dems are in control of the city and your ward. They are in favour of closing Wisewood and opening up a new school on the Myers Grove site. What is so hard to understand?
What a ridiculous comment. I was in the meeting with Jim Knight MP where he told us if we went ahead with two schools we would lose £100m worth of Government funding. That's blackmail in my book.

Perhaps with the support of our friendly local Labour party we might have got further, no?

Honestly, for you to make political capital out of this now just looks utterly desperate. You lot must think that everyone in Sheffield 6 is soft in the head to buy what you're selling!

What a ridiculous comment. I was in the meeting with Jim Knight MP where he told us if we went ahead with two schools we would lose £100m worth of Government funding. That's blackmail in my book.

Perhaps with the support of our friendly local Labour party we might have got further, no?

Honestly, for you to make political capital out of this now just looks utterly desperate. You lot must think that everyone in Sheffield 6 is soft in the head to buy what you're selling!

Thanks Umeeksk:thumbsup:
For putting All straight on that topic - im sure all in s6 and the rest of sheffield knows it was simple blackmail . While i dont want this thread to go into politics .
sheffield labour party did state at more than one point they would listen to its local people - The consultation was a sham and was reported as one in the local press - Labour in my opinion got there MPs out and government to force this merger -simple as . Labour even stated i recall why they lost the local councillors - the merger issue !!!! And yet it seems they still dont listen to its local people (oh and by the way i was a labour voter -never again !!!)

Loopylulu

Thank you for the offer. Unfortunately, my holidays and then work are again going to take me out of Sheffield for a while. Perhaps I can arrange for someone from my solicitors to come and take a look in the new year if I'm going to continue to be away.

I'm sure others may want to take up the offer.

However, this also confirms that legal proceedings are at an end, doesn't it?

So, can we all be told:

has the appeal against the judgement that there was no case for a judicial review been withdrawn by SOCS?
what, if anything, is the nature of any agreement between the City Council and SOCS in relation to this?
who is bearing the costs of the failed legal proceedings?


I think Loopy made this offer to you - so you should take the offer.
As for the other stuff by all means contact the council as HARRY always seems to say on here alot if you want questions answering;)

Sanman

I think there’s some wonderful re-writing of history being attempted here.

I read back carefully through the Council reports and minutes on Wisewood/Myers.

It was absolutely clear there throughout 2007 that the Government department had said that there would NOT be any additional government funds for a two-school solution. They were asked the question and their response was unambiguous.

However, Liberal Democrat Councillors then consistently said that (1) if they were elected, there would be a two-school solution, and (2) that, with the City council under Liberal Democrat control, the additional £25m would be funded by the City Council.

That was re-affirmed by Liberal Democrat Leader Councillor Paul Scriven when he was asked the precise question about how the two-school solution would be funded in the absence of government funds.

Umeeksk a.k.a. Joe Taylor (now Liberal Democrat Councillor for Hillsborough), after the 2008 local elections, specifically posted on this thread:

“The motion was proposed by Lib Dem Steve Ayris….. supported by all 39 Lib Dem councillors…….. If you read the motion as a whole, it's unambiguous - the merger process is to be stopped and both schools will be kept open.”

Again, no ambiguity there.

Then, at the request of the new Liberal Democrat Leadership, a further meeting was held with the government department.

Far from saying ‘We’ve got a mandate for a two-school solution; we want you to fund the rest of the programme as agreed and the City Council will provide the additional £25m required.’, they said ‘We’ve got a mandate for a two-school solution and we want the government to provide an additional £25m to make it happen.”

Not surprisingly, the government department said: ‘Look. How often do we have to tell you? There is no way that we are going to find an additional £25m to fund a two-school solution that your own Chief Education Officer says he can’t justify and which he says, if implemented, would simply bring considerable and continuing uncertainty to all the secondary schools in the north-west of the city, and which all the secondary head-teachers in the city say would be disastrous.’

None of the rules of the game changed between 2007 and 2008.

• The government department remained consistent.
• The Chief Education Officer’s professional advice remained consistent.
• The views of every one of the city’s Secondary Heads remained consistent.

The one thing that clearly changed was the Liberal Democrat promise: from promising £25m of city council resources to fund the two-school solution, they went to demanding and additional £25m from the government to fund a two-school solution – in the full knowledge that they would never get approval to it.

As, I am reliably advised, Councillor Scriven told his colleagues: ‘This is a great promise and campaign. If we win, we take the credit; if we lose, we’ll blame the government.”

Why are SOCS being so secretive? As they admit to having made a deal with the council, why not publicise what the deal is?

I think Loopy made this offer to you - so you should take the offer.
As for the other stuff by all means contact the council as HARRY always seems to say on here alot if you want questions answering;)

I'm not aware that it was the Council which was consistently claiming that it was taking judicial review proceedings.

Further, it is SOCS' members who keep indicating that they have been successful. I'd like to know what that means.

if there has been some deal between the City Council and SOCS on both the proceedings and costs, I'd expect that that should be fully reported in due course. If it isn't, I shall pursue through a FOI request.

What a ridiculous comment. I was in the meeting with Jim Knight MP where he told us if we went ahead with two schools we would lose £100m worth of Government funding. That's blackmail in my book.


Umeeksk. as you were there, can you just answer this simple question please?

Did you say: 'We want a two-school solution and we're prepared to find the additional £25m capital costs from the City Council.' (as you'd promised)

or

Did you say: 'We want a two-school solution and we want the Government to provide the extra £25m capital costs.'

Why are SOCS being so secretive? As they admit to having made a deal with the council, why not publicise what the deal is?

If socs are so secretive then are the proposing group doing the same?

As said ANY questions can be asked by email to the socs website i understand - this is the same with the proposing group .
i could also ask why dont the proposing group publicise there info as well?
court papers can be seen loopy stated (not sure this is right or wrong for stating that)

I'm not aware that it was the Council which was consistently claiming that it was taking judicial review proceedings.

Further, it is SOCS' members who keep indicating that they have been successful. I'd like to know what that means.

if there has been some deal between the City Council and SOCS on both the proceedings and costs, I'd expect that that should be fully reported in due course. If it isn't, I shall pursue through a FOI request.

You state the case is over- Then why not ask sheffield council about it all???

And by all means contact socs website for ANY info by email - im sure they are there to help or put you in the right direction ;)

Umeeksk. as you were there, can you just answer this simple question please?

Did you say: 'We want a two-school solution and we're prepared to find the additional £25m capital costs from the City Council.' (as you'd promised)

or

Did you say: 'We want a two-school solution and we want the Government to provide the extra £25m capital costs.'

did Lib dems have two options put on the table to keep both schools open ?

come to think of it - i recall in the town hall meeting two labour councillors stated if options could be found to save both schools they would back the two school option ??

I get the feeling here that Harry and others who go on about point scoring will not bring up anyone whos for the merger and who are point scoring?

Anyway - happy xmas all and new year
Im sure the merger issue debate will be in full flow after xmas with more meetings, alot more protests:thumbsup: and a big communities meeting
Save the schools!!!!

did Lib dems have two options put on the table to keep both schools open ?

come to think of it - i recall in the town hall meeting two labour councillors stated if options could be found to save both schools they would back the two school option ??

I get the feeling here that Harry and others who go on about point scoring will not bring up anyone whos for the merger and who are point scoring?

Anyway - happy xmas all and new year
Im sure the merger issue debate will be in full flow after xmas with more meetings, alot more protests:thumbsup: and a big communities meeting
Save the schools!!!!

Let me be clear. I've never expressed a view either for or against a one- or a two-school solution.

My objection always has been to people who try to take me for a ride.

In this case:
1) SOCS continuing promises over the last 12 months of their overwhelming expectation of success in judicial review proceedings, when it has been clear that there wasn't a cat in hell's chance, given the judge's comments in the first application judgement.
2) Making promises that were clearly undeliverable. I'm not bothered which party they represent. In this case, it happens to be the Liberal Democrats. I'd be just as critical if it had been Labour or Conservative or Green.

Happy christmas.

RosyRat & Localman

I think you are both being intentionally misleading. First of all RosyRat states that the Lib Dems "They are in favour of closing Wisewood and opening up a new school on the Myers Grove site". This is simply not the case as you well know. THe Lib Dems have been black mailed into the current position.

I would be far more understanding of the Labour Governments position if they had simply stated that they would not fund any additional cost for a two school option. Unfortunately Jim Knight didn't do this instead he threatened to withhold all of the BSF money unless the school merger went ahead. That is blackmail in anyones book. I can fully understand your argument if the government had just withheld the 25 Million and the Lib Dems had failed to keep their promise. In that case I too would be questioning them, but that isn't the case at the risk of repeating myself Jim Knight said either go ahead with the merger or we withhold all of the BSF money. Blackmail

but still lets go back to the bridge and traffic problems shall we and get input on that
Those that want the merger on here do seem to avoid this topic alot dont they?

I for one have posted suggestions re traffic problems. Which you
proceeded to find fault with. Even to the point of telling me that it would be
rush hour at 3.35pm and dark at 4pm. I understand your opposition. But if
you wish to make a point please try to come somewhere near the truth.

You post 602 605,613, and my replies 604 607 612, and 615 refer.

Sanman, I would be very careful when you bandy words like blackmail around, someone could take you seriously and investigate whether your statements are libellous.

You are also being more than a little disingenuous in stating what happened with the government and the BSF funding. The same offer was made to both the Labour and Lib Dem administrations. There was money on offer which was based on the recommendations of the officers and, if the recommendations were altered, then the whole of the BSF funding would have had to have been re-appraised. Not withheld, re-appraised.

Your senior councillors now accept this and are pressing ahead with the merger.

Are you not happy with having lied to the electorate about keeping both schools open without continuing this further lie about having been blackmailed into the merger?

Sanman, I would be very careful when you bandy words like blackmail around, someone could take you seriously and investigate whether your statements are libellous.

You are also being more than a little disingenuous in stating what happened with the government and the BSF funding. The same offer was made to both the Labour and Lib Dem administrations. There was money on offer which was based on the recommendations of the officers and, if the recommendations were altered, then the whole of the BSF funding would have had to have been re-appraised. Not withheld, re-appraised.

Your senior councillors now accept this and are pressing ahead with the merger.

Are you not happy with having lied to the electorate about keeping both schools open without continuing this further lie about having been blackmailed into the merger?

Max what would you call it then? If you really beleived that my post was libellous then as a mod wouldn't you remove it? The fact that the government used the same threats to a labour administration shows what contempt they have for the electorate.

I believe that the lib dems were honest in their desire to keep open both schools. However when you are threatened to have all your BSF money withheld then it is pointless to cut your nose off to spite your face. Senior councillors have had no option to accept it in light of the threats that have been issued.

Are you happy to have been a member of a party that not only ran a sham of a public consultation on this matter but also tried its damndest to give away a large chunk of our public open space in the shape of the St Lukes & Graves Park fiasco?

Max what would you call it then? If you really beleived that my post was libellous then as a mod wouldn't you remove it? The fact that the government used the same threats to a labour administration shows what contempt they have for the electorate.

I believe that the lib dems were honest in their desire to keep open both schools. However when you are threatened to have all your BSF money withheld then it is pointless to cut your nose off to spite your face. Senior councillors have had no option to accept it in light of the threats that have been issued.

Are you happy to have been a member of a party that not only ran a sham of a public consultation on this matter but also tried its damndest to give away a large chunk of our public open space in the shape of the St Lukes & Graves Park fiasco?

Are you happy to belong to a party that has lied to the electorate all the way down the line with regard to the merger of these two schools? This is what this thread is about so please don't go off on tangents.

Sanman, I would be very careful when you bandy words like blackmail around, someone could take you seriously and investigate whether your statements are libellous.
Oh dear - so you are now adding legal threats to the mix unless Sanman stops telling tales about your nice Government? So this is the way our friendly local Labour party would prefer to debate with people! :rolleyes:

You are also being more than a little disingenuous in stating what happened with the government and the BSF funding. The same offer was made to both the Labour and Lib Dem administrations. There was money on offer which was based on the recommendations of the officers and, if the recommendations were altered, then the whole of the BSF funding would have had to have been re-appraised. Not withheld, re-appraised.

Your senior councillors now accept this and are pressing ahead with the merger.

Are you not happy with having lied to the electorate about keeping both schools open without continuing this further lie about having been blackmailed into the merger?
Oooooh Max, this isn't exactly true now, is it? We were told that if we pressed ahead with two schools we would be kicked out of BSF wave 4, to the tune of £100 million. Not exactly a "reappraisal".

I think Max if you are going to rewrite history you might want to do better than providing accounts of meetings you never attended.

As for being offered "the same deal", did the Labour administration offer to put up 25 million quid to keep two schools? They kept awfully quiet about it if they did. Perhaps if our local Labour party had supported that plan - rather than having MPs like Blunkett brief the press on why we were wrong - we might have got a little further with that?

Max, I would be very careful when you bandy words like "lying to the electorate" around as no-one will take you seriously. :D

Are you happy to belong to a party that has lied to the electorate all the way down the line with regard to the merger of these two schools? This is what this thread is about so please don't go off on tangents.

And I thought you were keen on libel? Maybe practice what you preach :nono: but that's never been a labour stongpoint has it?

Sanman, I would be very careful when you bandy words like blackmail around, someone could take you seriously and investigate whether your statements are libellous.


Max, if you are saying that Sanman has to be careful using the word blackmail with regards to the topic in question then surely you should say the same of the Sheffield Star - blackmail is how they reported it as well!!!

They also reported a sham consultation - are they in the wrong also??

Why didnt Labour act on the libellous comments against the Sheffield Star - perhaps because what was being said was TRUE!!!

Read the link below:

http://www.thestar.co.uk/thestarsays/Contradictions-by-Government.4288406.jp

In order to stop this cantekerous and bitter debate, I openly invite the local Lib dem councillors - Steve Ayris and Joe Taylor, plus Cabinet member Andy Sangar and Lib dem Leader Paul Scriven, to reply publically on the Forum about their recent, in the last few months statement, that they fully now support the merger as the only way forward for these 2 schools, having fulfilled the party pledge (remember, a party that I am a member of!) to TRY to deliver the 2 school options. The words of the new Director, Sonia Sharpe are public, and even I know that Nick Clegg has attended a meeting of the Proposing group in the last few weeks. The political fallout just does not seem to apply any more as suggested by others.

If it does though, and my local politicians are giveing out messages of hope to SOCS and others that oppose the merger, then my locally appointed politicians need to explain this course of action, which seems absolutely contradicatory to messages being given to those accountable for delivery of the new school! We really do need to dispel some of these myths once and for all in order to progress in a sane and coordinated way. Steve and Joe - I know you read this thread - please clarify!! Harryarwen

Thanks for some postings today Joe - perhaps though u are best placed to resolve thisoeas I've invited you to do! You will recall that when you and Steve met on my dorrstep and you asked me to put the poster up for you - as I always do, that I invited you to meet with me and others to discuss this. No such meeting ever occurred. Rather than see people contiuing to get acrimonious on this thread, you could make the statement that our party made in the press not so long ago, and that was echoed by Sonia Sharpe that the full weight of the current Lib Dem adminsitration is behind the merger now. I am sure that we could come up with numerous people who were at the meeting when Andy Sangar stated thkis publically and even offered to go public with that statement. please therefore, in orderf to clarify, could you publically CONFIRM that our party are NOW FULLY behind the merger, working towards it, and support it WHOLE HEARTEDLY.? Thanks Joe - it will just take the sting out of this!!

Thanks for some postings today Joe - perhaps though u are best placed to resolve thisoeas I've invited you to do! You will recall that when you and Steve met on my dorrstep and you asked me to put the poster up for you - as I always do, that I invited you to meet with me and others to discuss this. No such meeting ever occurred. Rather than see people contiuing to get acrimonious on this thread, you could make the statement that our party made in the press not so long ago, and that was echoed by Sonia Sharpe that the full weight of the current Lib Dem adminsitration is behind the merger now. I am sure that we could come up with numerous people who were at the meeting when Andy Sangar stated thkis publically and even offered to go public with that statement. please therefore, in orderf to clarify, could you publically CONFIRM that our party are NOW FULLY behind the merger, working towards it, and support it WHOLE HEARTEDLY.? Thanks Joe - it will just take the sting out of this!!
Short answer - yes.

We firmly believe that two separate schools was the best option, but that is now off the table.

The absolute worst case scenario though would be that the new school opens its gates in 2011 without solving any of the problems we know we will have - particularly the transport issue. The worst case would be a merged school that has no support from local parents.

So yes, I would urge people to get involved in the process of planning the new school to make it a success, and to keep making a fuss about issues like transport. I have said this to SOCS too so they know where I stand.

In the new year we will also be kicking off a process to decide what happens with the existing Wisewood site, so watch this space for further news.

Short answer - yes.

We firmly believe that two separate schools was the best option, but that is now off the table.



Umeeksk:
can you answer the very simple question I asked you please:


Did you say: 'We want a two-school solution and we're prepared to find the additional £25m capital costs from the City Council.' (as you'd promised)

or

Did you say: 'We want a two-school solution and we want the Government to provide the extra £25m capital costs.'

Umeeksk:
can you answer the very simple question I asked you please:


Did you say: 'We want a two-school solution and we're prepared to find the additional £25m capital costs from the City Council.' (as you'd promised)

or

Did you say: 'We want a two-school solution and we want the Government to provide the extra £25m capital costs.'
Sorry, didn't see this before.

The former - we offered to pay the £25m.

RosyRat & Localman

I would be far more understanding of the Labour Governments position if they had simply stated that they would not fund any additional cost for a two school option.

Sanman:
You're being disingenuous. Go back and read the 2007 reports of the Chief Education Officer on this issue. The government position remained exactly the same all the way through. They made it clear throughout that a two-school solution would inevitably mean that the City Council would have to revisit the whole of its submission because there would automatically be knock-on consequences for (1) all the other secondary schools in the NW of the city, and then (2) a knock-on to other schools outside the NW. That was why ALL the secondary headteachers in the city were opposed.

If the Liberal Democrat promise to deliver a two-school solution was honest, it could only be so if it relied on the bizarre and uncredible assumption that Liberal Democrat Councillors would prove to be much more influential with a Labour Minister than Labour Councillors AND that the Chief Education Officer could magically produce a set of educational and organisational justifications for a two-school solution, when he'd said over and over again that he couldn't.

Sorry, didn't see this before.

The former - we offered to pay the £25m.

So, which elements in the City Council's capital programme for 2009 and 2010 would have had to go to make way for this?

Short answer - yes.

We firmly believe that two separate schools was the best option, but that is now off the table.


.

This sounds to me if Lib dems had there way then both schools would still be open !!!

i think its clear that Lib dems did listen to locals but was blocked by it by Government and sheffield labour

BUT im sorry to say SOCS are also planning meetings ,demos, etc for the two school option still after xmas

I really cant see why the proposing group was never happy with having a new school and its 14-19 center on the Myers site
but also just letting wisewood have a refurb ?? ill never understand that at all:(
I also find it odd that members on here stated who they was i.e (Socs members) but proposing group members on this thread seem to still want to hide away ?

But what ever side your on with the merger i wish you all a HAPPY NEW YEAR and A HAPPY XMAS:)

So, which elements in the City Council's capital programme for 2009 and 2010 would have had to go to make way for this?
It doesn't quite work like that. We had got as far as committing to find the money, and had the Government accepted our offer we would have included it in our budget for the relevant financial year.

I don't accept your premise that anything would be have to cut from the capital programme. There are other ways of balancing the books - for example, you could bring forward the sale of an asset (land or premises for example) or delay, rather than cancel, a particular investment.

So it's impossible to say what if anything would have made way for it as that would be part of the budget process.

But rest assured we had committed to find the money, and we would have looked pretty damn stupid if the Government had accepted our offer and we didn't follow through on it!

If the Liberal Democrat promise to deliver a two-school solution was honest, it could only be so if it relied on the bizarre and uncredible assumption that Liberal Democrat Councillors would prove to be much more influential with a Labour Minister than Labour Councillors AND that the Chief Education Officer could magically produce a set of educational and organisational justifications for a two-school solution, when he'd said over and over again that he couldn't.
We promised to fight for a two-school solution. That was all we could promise, and indeed I said repeatedly on this forum during the last election that that was what we would do.

I was praised by another member (Blusky?) for being honest about it and not promising things we couldn't deliver in order to win votes!

You can go back and read the old Wisewood part 2 thread if you like, I think you'll find it stacks up favourably against the Labour Party version of history!

One last thing. If Labour Councillors are as influential as you say, then why didn't they listen to local people and use that influence to keep Wisewood open? And aren't they as culpable in opposition as they were in power?

I do think its good that UMEEKSK (lib dem councillor) has come on here and answerd some of your questions
So to that we must thank him for:thumbsup:

We promised to fight for a two-school solution. That was all we could promise, and indeed I said repeatedly on this forum during the last election that that was what we would do.



Umeeksk:
You didn't just promise to fight for a two-school solution.

You posted:
“The motion was proposed by Lib Dem Steve Ayris….. supported by all 39 Lib Dem councillors…….. If you read the motion as a whole, it's unambiguous - the merger process is to be stopped and both schools will be kept open.”

It doesn't quite work like that. We had got as far as committing to find the money, and had the Government accepted our offer we would have included it in our budget for the relevant financial year.

I don't accept your premise that anything would be have to cut from the capital programme. There are other ways of balancing the books - for example, you could bring forward the sale of an asset (land or premises for example) or delay, rather than cancel, a particular investment.

So it's impossible to say what if anything would have made way for it as that would be part of the budget process.

But rest assured we had committed to find the money, and we would have looked pretty damn stupid if the Government had accepted our offer and we didn't follow through on it!

Unfortunately, it does work like that.

You cannot seriously be telling me that you were making a promise to spend an additional £25m without having done the analysis and made a plan as to how it could be delivered?

It could only come from either
1) a £25m additional income from capital receipts from selling assets - and, this at a time when all councils were reducing their assumptions about receipts because of the economic outlook, or
2) not doing things which were already in the capital programme, as well as using all the uncommitted resources in Yrs 2 & 3 of the programme.

I think Loopy made this offer to you - so you should take the offer.
As for the other stuff by all means contact the council as HARRY always seems to say on here alot if you want questions answering;)

Thanks Masons - yes, do have a lot to say in ensuring that the new school hapens but not quite so sure why you sudenl recommend me as the font of all knowledge? Seems you are pretty clued up like me but with an alternative viewpoint which is fine.

Any way, hope you and yours had a great Xmas and an even better 2009 - hope to get back to our exchanges ASAP!

Cheers! "Harry"