Someone has just sent me the following link -

[urlhttp://www.methley-village.com/html/residents_association.html[/url

It would seem that Methley & Mickletown Residents Association are happy to potentially commit libel now as well. Do you think they know that is what they are doing by blatantly claiming things they know not to be true and publishing them?

I am doubly angry that they have used a very disappointing incident that saw someone (we have no idea whom) attaching Statements of Support to a school newsletter at Rothwell St Mary's Catholic Primary school and sending it home with all the children in the school, to further their anti-campaign! I can't believe they have even printed this in a community newsletter in the first place but then they have twisted the story to insinuate that we were behind this and that we 'used' the headmaster and the children. We were not, we didn't, we have no idea who did and we equally condemn them for doing so, but I am amazed that anyone could sink so low as to use this to further their own campaign. This is simply low and despicable behaviour and only strengthens my original resolve to fight for this development.

Accuse 'us' of (wrongly) using children and then purposefully stoop much lower themselves! Horrible and unnecessary!

I will be contacting the headmaster tomorrow and clarifying exactly what he did said in his newsletter to parents about this... I suspect, it is not what is being 'claimed' in this newsletter!

Jesus, haven't they done enough already!

Can't see anything libellous or potentially libellous in that at all.

It looks like someone has done summat daft, but let's not get carried away here.

You mean other than the opening two sentences -

Yorkcourt =#FF0000attempts to influence policy process despite Inquiry

So they have evidence that Yorkcourt have attempted to influence policy process at Wakefield MDC... do you think they will be pleased about being accused of allowing a developer to gerrymander in a open policy process?

Methley News can reveal that Wakefield Council, despite an impending Public Inquiry, has agreed to allow Yorkcourt Properties to increase the size of the Newmarket site that they wish to develop into warehousing.

This is a great claim, they are claiming Wakefield council have agreed to allow Yorkcourt properties to increase the size of the site... so once again not only is this not true they are claiming that Yorkcourt asked for an got more land for development at Newmarket despite the fact that this is still an ongoing public process.

The further sub-text is that Yorkcourt are trying to circumvent the PI by another route! Very dodgy claims indeed and I suspect not one shred of evidence to back up their claims?

Now of course, as much I think that both Wakefield MDC and Yorkcourt have been potentially libelled then they are only guilty of libel if taken to court and ultimatley found guilty of it, which will not happen because it is a waste of time and effort. However, there is a big difference between biased reporting and blatantly making things up (and publishing it) and I think they are much closer to one than the other!

It's what they've done since day one and I defo think the relevant parties involved in the accusations should be told.

The head teacher at st marys school is completely responsible for any children taking part in any activity such as this. He should have had the intelligence not to allow it, as the head in our comprehensive did.
Staff ok, but primary school pupils,what an idiot. If this is true I would imagine he will be sweating on his job!!!

cant see where they have libeled anyone

I seem to remember an article on the WTWC website stating that the community department were getting primary school kids to fill in statements of support. I thought that this could not be true as an average 6 year old would not be able to make an informed choice about national planning policy. I also thought to any one unbiased it would look pretty low.

Please tell me they did not fill in the same statements of support as every one else as the wording in that it hardly child friendly. As this was also done in school time please assure me they were given both sides of the argument.

Here you go [urlhttp://www.wakefieldwildcats.co.uk/2011/01/local-schools-support-stadium/[/url

Very poor form, I would get off your high horse if I were you mr stone, you made a big issue about the fact that even kids could fill in the form on your web page. Also you must have been aware of the community team getting statements of support from schools. Like I said I do not see how any kid could sign your statement off support as you being you could not help but try making a point and in doing so have made the statement sound like very personal to yourself and totally incomprehensible to the average child.

All schools under the auspices of Education Leeds are instructed to be impartial in any such matters, this is clearly a mistake by the head and he has apologised, via a letter home to parents.
The only people making anything out of this are the methley resident(s) who published this in the methley news. Says more about them.
I have contacted the head at the school and have sent him the link to the methley news article for him to read, he may well be more wary of people in the future, especially those with the track record of our "friends" down on Newmarket Lane.
I am certain that this is a clear mistake, by all parties involved, an honest one by ourselves and Mr Nicholson, but as for the Methley News?????
Story over.

A couple of years ago, I was involved in a pressure group that helped to save my kid's school from being closed by the county council. The thing to do is to use this to gain publicity for your own cause... send out press releases to the media (ie Local Papers, Local Radio, Look North, Calendar etc) highlighting your concerns about the way that this has been reported and a balancing argument.

Rest assured that all this publicity will not make any difference to the planning outcome, but if you can put forward clear and coherent arguments in a very reasonable way, you can at least win a measure of respect from the locals ("Well, I'm against it, but at least they seem like a decent bunch"icon_wink.gif.

Best wishes

Well I can tell you categorically Mr Rugbyball that I have every one of the signed statements and I do NOT have such forms signed by groups of children from schools as you are claiming.

Under current law, children who are likely to be affected have a right to be part of any decision-making process. How they are involved is a matter for the people leading the project and opposing campaign.

However, I think the argument here is that it was not to do with children being involved, but the school as an institution sending the letters home to parents (as it makes it look like the letter has the backing of the school, and by implication, the council.)

Hmmm, yes, apart from that bit.

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!