martonschool.myfreeforum.org

teacherx · Mildly Opinionated Joined: 05 Feb 2006 Posts: 22

Jackie, surely you know by now that the rules are changed or bent to suit the situation at the time?
Mr Lund said that Mrs Connor had to be removed from Marton because she had removed her own children, and it would be better for her. The real reason was that she asked questions that the CSA didn't want to answer.
It will be interesting to see whether the same fate awaits Mrs Knowles.

_________________
Listen to the facts and decide for yourself

Lisa · Reaching Full Speed Joined: 06 Oct 2005 Posts: 69

I think Mrs Knowles is very brave. I commend her for having the courage to do what is best for her child. I wish her well.
_________________
Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.

Albert Einstein

Alan Veale · Master of Posters Joined: 07 Oct 2005 Posts: 118

This message is primarily intended for the attention of “Jackie”, but the points I am about to raise are important for anyone to note, especially when considering making a contribution to this Forum. When this site was first introduced, the instruction was given by Admin that “This forum has been set-up to distribute true and accurate information.” It was also stated that “wild speculation” would not be tolerated. These are particularly important on a forum like this where the subject matter covers such sensitive issues as our children’s future, and the careers and livelihood of professional people.

Those persons who hold a public office (as do Ruth Coupe, David Lund and even Mike Turner) recognise that their position is open to criticism by the public who expect them to discharge their duties to a particular standard. These are people who are entrusted with making decisions that may have far-reaching effects on children and staff alike. The same does not necessarily apply to the staff themselves, who are basically employed to perform more specific duties. Many members of staff have viewed this forum and considered making a contribution, but refrained from doing so because they genuinely fear being identified, and then being the subject of a reprisal from one of the three persons referred to above. This is the main reason why those members of staff who have posted on this site have done so anonymously.

When “Jackie” posted earlier in this thread about Mrs Knowles reasons for leaving, she appeared to have very specific and personal knowledge of the circumstances. One would have thought that Mrs Knowles was aware of the details being given, and had approved them herself – or else there should have been no identification made.

It has now been brought to my attention that this particular posting may NOT have contained “true and accurate information” – and that none of what was said was approved for posting on this site by Mrs Knowles. Given the highly personal nature of some of the content, this is potentially very hurtful to both Mrs Knowles and her family, and I call upon “Jackie” to either withdraw the post altogether, or to respond on this forum with a clarification on what basis and authority the post was made.

Alan Veale

admin · Site Admin Joined: 02 Oct 2005 Posts: 37

IMPORTANT NOTICE

This website forum has been set up under the fundamental basis of free speech. There are no rules on what information is disclosed, only that it should not be wild speculation or defamatory or indeed posted with malicious intent.

Whilst most posters choose not to use specific names in their post, there is no rule against doing this.

If someone has a complaint against one of the posts it should be reported to the administrator. The post will be removed or allowed on the merits of the post and the challenge.

I would urge posters to use the proper channels and not openly accuse posts of being untrue on the forum - this can only lead to long argumentative posts which serve no purpose. This is an open forum and anyone can join to put their point of view forward.

In Alan Veale's case he is challenging a post as being untrue and asking the original poster to provide evidence. However, Alan is himself a third party and offers no evidence as to why he believes the post to be untrue. Therefore his post serves no purpose, however, I will allow the post on this occasion to demonstrate how not to challenge a post.

IMPORTANT: WE DO NOT ASK ANYONE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF POSTED MATERIAL - FREE SPEECH IS FREE SPEECH AND SHOULD BE MADE WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE RULES OF THIS FORUM