Well read the link from your own site!!! Unless you mean you no longer have any!!!

I would say the article on the Trin site is pretty explicit about kids filling in statements of support.

Education Leeds' policy is one of neutrality in such matters, i know for a 100% fact that residents opposing the development have contacted schools in this area for their support, we just dont go around shouting about it or using underhand tricks which could result in someone losing their job to further our single minded campaign.

I will repeat - as stated I have every single one of the statements of support in my possession and I DO NOT have what you are trying to claim.

Don't sweat it, its propaganda, another dirty little trick.
if they don't get us, it'll be the s, the way things are going we wont have a team to put in the new ground anyway

We did discuss this at length at the committee meeting and and did not take the decision without careful consideration but we decided it was appropriate to =#BF0000follow their lead by indicating that minors were able to sign. The law of the land allows minors to sign and have a voice on this issue and because they had been at pains to highlight this in this their literature, we also felt in levelled the playing field.



I could not tell you, this is something that the Wildcats Community Team did with Schools in Wakefield but I suspect yes, they did fill in the same form. I suspect that before doing so they got the permission of the head's in the schools they visited and once again, as the law allows minors to participate in planning law I don't see an issue with this IF the head gives permission. Finally, why is it my job to assure you of anything, I am chairman of a Residents action group, no more no less?!?




Once again you miss the real points. Firstly, you ignore the fact 'they' had being actively inviting children since their campaign first started to get involved and as for making a big issue of it we simply state on the 'Did you Know' document "...and remember, every member of your household can complete one, including children." It does not appear at all on the Statement of Support and has only very occasionally being mentioned on posts on this board. Also, please look at the wording (I so think about these things) it is addressing 'an' adult and probably actual parent or guardian by talking about "very member of your household... including Children".

PS. What web-page? That is WCCG and WAR you are thinking of mate... we don't have a web page?

You of course completely miss the main point and that is them using this issue to score points and then clearly insinuate that we (the committee) instigated this (they do don't they, you can see this?) and then publish this in their newsletter as a way to, once again, to raise wider objection without even mentioning anything to do with our argument. They accuse 'us' of 'using' children but in reality it is them who actual use the Children as a political football by writing this story in the first place!!! Can you not see the huge contradiction in their actions, they actively encourage children to object and then when someone at the school, whom at worst made a minor error of judgement no more (I said above when I was angry last night that I condemned them, but that is an overreaction and don't) does something that is in opposition to their viewpoint, use this to condemn our actions and gain publicity for their... so who really 'used children', you tell me?

We received two e-mails (yes, just two) about this when it happened over a month ago sort of saying the same thing, they felt we had used their children as a way to get to them. I e-mailed one back (she didn't give me a contact number) and I phoned another one straight back. I apologised to both, even though 'we' had not done anything wrong strictly speaking, and I never heard back from the first one and the second person said, when I apologised, that I didn't have anything to apologise for now he understood that we had not actively asked the school for support.

Also, the final sentence is just appalling, I bet he did not say he regretted being 'used' by Residents FOR Newmarket... because we didn't use him for anything!

For gods sake Im not trying to claim anything, and I have no connections with any of the nimby groups. I AM JUST REPEATING WHAT WAS WRITTEN ON THE TRIN WEBSITE. Can you answer why your own clubs website suggests what it does then? Or are you just going to act as though the community team did not go round schools asking for the statements of support from kids. If you are I would suggest that you will look pretty daft and as it is their in the public domain for all to see (and my hard drive). And will ulitmatley undermine your position as you have the club saying you have statements off support from infant and primary school kids and you saying you have not( now its on top).

Surly if some thing has gone wrong and infants have been involved without your knowledge a simple sincere apology and clear statement on the role kids play in your campaign would be the best policy. In fact I am sure Jonathan is writing and essay (statement) as I type.

To keep it simple, your statement of support has been used in Schools through the WTWC community department. This statement is clearly not a document that kids infants would understand. The job of schools is to give kids a balanced view of a situation, and it would appear that this has not happened here.

As for the other groups encouraging kids to have their say, this in the most was not through some standard form as is the case with your "statement of support", and was under the supervision of their parents not the WTWC community team or a another another teacher.

I accept that you now say you knew nothing of the WTWC community team using your form in schools how ever with you spread it wide campaing you must be willing to accept some crittisim when things do not go to plan.

As for the points scoring, You have commented on their campaign and how you feel it is being run, you should expect the same.

At the end of the day Weather it be your group or the WTWC or some teachers the campaign for Newmarket has been tarnished somewhat.

Rugbyball - We apologised directly to two parents who contacted us and as I said, the one I spoke said I did not need to offer one, but I did anyway and stand by that apology and will continue to stand by it. We do not rule out support from minors because the law doesn't and as long as any signatures gained were done so in an appropriate manor then we have and never had any objection to this in fact, this is the opening paragraph to the e-mail I sent to one of the two parents.

[iThanks for your e-mail.

Firstly, I am unsure how our literature ended up in your child’s school bag and we have not (as far as I am currently aware as Chairman) asked any schools to actively participate in our campaign and as a School Governor myself, I would always be cautious of approaching a campaign in this way. If they have done so they have done so without prompting from us (but I will double check with the committee). We have of course sent some information to Stanley Rangers RL club, so we are not excluding children receiving information via this route, but the information was sent to parent contacts and people running that club, once again it would be up to them to make decisions about how they participate in the campaign.[/i

The reason we didn't actual issue and 'public' apology at the time is because only two parents contacted us and it was a minor issue (as far was we were concerned) and we have never heard from or had direct contact from the school.

Is that ok?

CAREFULL!

You're very close to questioning Catwomans professional integrity and I won't stand for that.

Secondly, the article says that staff and children were adding their signatures not filling in statements.

Fine my friend. Like i say the part of the WTWC community department bothers me more, not that the kids where asked to take part in the debate but as to weather they will have been given both sides of the argument, and in my view the community team used their position to get access to kids where other groups would not. And as their is no mention of the kids being given a balanced view of the subject or imput from any other groups ( perhaps one of the environmental groups) then I can only assume they did not. And second to that if they filled in the statements from your group then I would be amazed if they understood the full implications of what they were filling in, and to be fair some will not have even been able to read it!

Kids are easily INFLUNCED.

Ill say no more, Im sure the relevant people will decide for themselves if this was an appropriate way to canvas the support of children and if they received the full facts. And besides from what I hear it will make no difference to the stadium being built anyway.

It says they were collecting all the signature of support forms. And to be honest its done now and in the public domain, so people will make their own minds up.

Firstly, why are you again complaining to me about what school heads do or do not do, or what the Wakefield Trinity Wildcats Community team have asked permission to do?

Secondly, I have already stated and will state again (you seem unable to absorb this information) that we do not rule out support from Children because the law does not and as long as that support was gained in an appropriate way then we are fine with this. We would consider 'appropriate' to be at the knowledge or behest of anyone who as a legal or implied parental right and permission to supervise minors.

If anyone is upset then by how their children have been approached then we will always apologise, even if ultimately it is not our direct responsibility as we can't be held responsible for the actions of others.

Finally, you are so bloody bitter mate, this has not tarnished our campaign at all, in your warped world yes. I think the school and mostly Methley Residents Association are the ones tarnished... we did not do anything wrong and still apologised!

Fine no skin of my nose, you think what you want. If I am bitter your entrenched and obtuse.

its dictionary time!!! first one back with both gets one of teds old suits!!!

It is like going round in circles with you, now you have realised that you don't have leg to stand on criticising us, because we did nothing wrong, you are turning this and our Statement of Support into some political football... you are as low as they are!

Catwoman1 has clearly stated that as far as she is concerned she does not have any forms that appear to be from Wakefield schools. Any forms that don't have a recognisable address on them are not being included.

I think you should apologise to Catwoman1... after all, you want me to apologise for lots of things!

Finally, you are only arguing because your view is different, the balance thing is just smoke-screen rubbish! You are making yourself, once again, look a bit of a one eyed fool!

Finally, you are in some ways correct, it might not play a huge part in the final decision and of course we only did this because of their claims that 'local people don't want this'... well, we have proved them wrong, we have already 6 times the support they have and growing. No longer can a news story or paper claim, despite huge local objection... because it is not true... and we have over 5000 Statements to prove it!

All I was doing was pointing out the law regarding children's views, as you seemed to imply they shouldn't be taken seriously in your statement about average 6 year olds and national planning policy.

I don't see what this reply has to do with the part of the quote you highlighted TBF.

Yes, I am entrenched (that is not really a negative position, just a valid an explanation) but not sure about obtuse... what is obtuse about my published motives?

Does that make you half bitter then... result!

Some outstanding knee jerking there Dillo. A career in Riverdance surely beckons.....

The pertinent question is, has Yorkcourt applied to extend the development by a third to 300 acres?

I am not so sure it is a knee jerk mate... I am upset that they once again are quite happy to scrape the bottom of the moral dustbin to solicit wider objection.

As for the Yorkcourt applying to extend the development then it is no! The only thing that is changed is the recommendation in the LDF to increase the land allocation at Newmarket to 51 ha from the previous 33ha for B8 development and it's approval by Wakefield MDC in January. Also, once again they do love to add an extra amount of land area when they can... this one is not too bad, they have added 30% or so on to the actual total site area of 213 acres (excluding the new road) I wonder if they do it on purpose? It does make it sound like the site area has extended does it not... hmmm, clearly just a poor description then!

The best one was a letter in the Wakefield Express where they writer said 'they were taking over 750 acres of beautiful green-belt land at Newmarket'!!! Bloody hell, where did the other 530 acres some from!!!

not having a go, just adding to your point really from the point of view of the school and the education authority.
certainly didnt imply anything about about NPP or 6 year olds, you may have me mixed up with someone else i think.

Never seen it, must be where they keep the unicorns. Certainly not the $hit tip of scrub land i drive past!!!!

Soz kinleycat - half asleep here.. I did have you mixed up withe someone else.

Apologies.

no worries, it happens all the time, its usually george clooney!!!!!

lol - Not George Best, then?

I have an initial report that the headmaster has indeed been misquoted by Methley News...

I spoke to him very briefly today and he is calling me tomorrow, so will get confirmation from him exactly what he said in the newsletter to parents. Not that when I e-mail Methley News and ask them to correct their stories they are going to do anything anyway, but at least it puts this to bed and makes me feel better!