Today's most viewed
Head bans over 100 pupils after protest
 |
| The scene of the pupil protest |
A HEADTEACHER has banned more than 100 children from a Basingstoke school following a mass pupil protest - and he told their parents about the suspension by sending a text message.
A total of 117 pupils at Brighton Hill Community College have been suspended after they took to the banks of the playing fields last Wednesday morning and refused to attend their scheduled lessons.
The students decided to skip classes in protest at a plan to extend the school day by 20 minutes.
David Eyre, headteacher at the school, said the pupils who took part in the full protest have been told they will be suspended for the rest of the term, which is due to end on Wednesday.
Mr Eyre said parents were initially notified of the disciplinary action taken against their child by text message, and confirmation will be sent by letter this week.
Mr Eyre told The Gazette: "I am very disappointed that the children involved feel that this is the way to put their views forward.
"The governing body is totally supportive of what I have done. The parents I have spoken to have been largely supportive and have been horrified at the children's actions."
However, not every parent agreed with the suspensions. Paul Mason, of Britten Road, Brighton Hill, said his 13-year-old daughter could not go on a school trip to Paris at the weekend because of the disciplinary action.
The 49-year-old said: "As a headteacher, I have had no problems with him Mr Eyre, but I just think this is a total overreaction, and some of the children are being punished twice by not being able to go on the trip.
| The parents I have spoken to have been largely supportive and have been horrified at the children’s actions | | Headteacher David Eyre |
|
"It was a legitimate protest. I feel the school's reaction was out of spite more than anything else."
The timetable change, starting in September, will see the school day extended by 20 minutes, finishing at 3.05pm instead of 2.45pm.
Pupils at the school, in Brighton Way, Brighton Hill, currently take 30-minute lunch breaks in two separate groups. Under the new system, they will eat lunch together in one period lasting 50 minutes.
Mr Eyre said: "The change is in the interests of the children. They will have long enough to have a meal, have a break and start their afternoon lessons feeling refreshed."
He added that he asked pupils and parents for their feedback on the scheme two months ago.
Mr Eyre said: "We sent out questionnaires about it, and I know that some were for it and some were against it. We cannot wait until 100 per cent of the students agree with a change - that is not how democracy works."
One Year 10 student, who took part in the protest and did not wish to be named, claimed there was a lot of opposition to the planned changes.
He said: "This protest was a way of letting Mr Eyre know that he cannot say he cares for our opinions and then disregard them the next minute. People do not want a longer school day. We get bored as it is in our current lunch-break."
10:04am Monday 21st July 2008
Print 
Email this 
CommentPosted by: Craig Killick, Basingstoke on 12:58pm Mon 21 Jul 08
Seems a bit hypocritical. It's fine for teachers to strike over working conditions but students can't have a voice? Fair play to them.
Seems a bit hypocritical. It's fine for teachers to strike over working conditions but students can't have a voice? Fair play to them.
Posted by: Ragman, Hampshire on 2:27pm Mon 21 Jul 08
[quote]Paul Mason, of Britten Road, Brighton Hill, said his 13-year-old daughter could not go on a school trip to Paris at the weekend because of the disciplinary action.[/quote]
Quite right too.
Maybe if more teaching staff had the balls to carry out this kind of discipline then these kids would get the idea into their heads that [italic]their[/italic] bad behaviour [italic]will[/italic] have consequences for [italic]them[/italic] .
From the reports that I heard these kids were smoking on the school grounds, setting fires and leaving the school grounds (MacDonalds run) without authorisation - all of these are known to be unacceptable behaviour and so deserve punishment.
These dumb kids also believed that because there were so many of them that the school wouldn't be able to punish them! It sounds to me like they need EXTRA lessons, not being banned from school.
Does Mr Mason think that his darling daughter should be allowed to go on a trip to Paris after being involved in this sort of behaviour? Maybe we should all be able to pick and choose the punishment we like and ignore the ones we don't. Parenting like this breeds the kind of contempt these kids displayed last week.
Hey let's hope that they do it again and get thrown out of the school - this would then open up some places for kids that actually want to go to school to learn, not become the next generation of lazy, dole sponging, unemployable, good for nothings like this lot look like becoming.
Paul Mason, of Britten Road, Brighton Hill, said his 13-year-old daughter could not go on a school trip to Paris at the weekend because of the disciplinary action.
Quite right too.
Maybe if more teaching staff had the balls to carry out this kind of discipline then these kids would get the idea into their heads that
their bad behaviour
will have consequences for
them .
From the reports that I heard these kids were smoking on the school grounds, setting fires and leaving the school grounds (MacDonalds run) without authorisation - all of these are known to be unacceptable behaviour and so deserve punishment.
These dumb kids also believed that because there were so many of them that the school wouldn't be able to punish them! It sounds to me like they need EXTRA lessons, not being banned from school.
Does Mr Mason think that his darling daughter should be allowed to go on a trip to Paris after being involved in this sort of behaviour? Maybe we should all be able to pick and choose the punishment we like and ignore the ones we don't. Parenting like this breeds the kind of contempt these kids displayed last week.
Hey let's hope that they do it again and get thrown out of the school - this would then open up some places for kids that actually want to go to school to learn, not become the next generation of lazy, dole sponging, unemployable, good for nothings like this lot look like becoming.
Posted by: anoymous, basingstoke on 2:49pm Mon 21 Jul 08
speaking as a student, over half of our school (including teachers) did not want the school day to be longer, alot of the students get bored on long lunch times, and having seperate lunch's is over-crowded as it is, they [italic]dont[/italic] need to be changed. I didn't personally take part in the protest, because i don't feel that is the way to handle it. Just because we tell Mr. Eyre our veiws, doesn't mean he has [bold]ever[/bold] listened to us.
speaking as a student, over half of our school (including teachers) did not want the school day to be longer, alot of the students get bored on long lunch times, and having seperate lunch's is over-crowded as it is, they
dont need to be changed. I didn't personally take part in the protest, because i don't feel that is the way to handle it. Just because we tell Mr. Eyre our veiws, doesn't mean he has
ever listened to us.
Posted by: Ragman, Hampshire on 3:20pm Mon 21 Jul 08
[quote]Just because we tell Mr. Eyre our veiws, doesn't mean he has ever listened to us.[/quote]
Why should he?
He is running a school, not a commune.
Instead of getting bored on your lunch break maybe you should spend the time polishing up your communication skills - English grammar would be a good start.
Just because we tell Mr. Eyre our veiws, doesn't mean he has ever listened to us.
Why should he?
He is running a school, not a commune.
Instead of getting bored on your lunch break maybe you should spend the time polishing up your communication skills - English grammar would be a good start.
Posted by: Carlos Tilbury, overton on 4:04pm Mon 21 Jul 08
blimey 50 mins for lunch, finish at 3.05, wish I had those hours, maybe just change the finishing time to 5pm that way you'll be prepared for everyday working life.
blimey 50 mins for lunch, finish at 3.05, wish I had those hours, maybe just change the finishing time to 5pm that way you'll be prepared for everyday working life.
Posted by: mason, basingstoke on 7:30pm Mon 21 Jul 08
Firstly whoever told Ragman of Basingstoke that a peaceful protest was 'Bad Behaviour' You sound very educated to me...
Secondly my child abhors smoking so she dosent indulge in or out of school.
The dumb kids he is refering to are our future and my child has never achieved less than a grade A or B
My darling daughter will go on a trip to Paris as soon as the school return her passport
My parenting skills have seen my older children achieve their degrees at university
My childs gradecard which we recieved today quotes 'She is a child able to see both sides of an issue' which obviously you cant.
And lastly, have you ever heard the saying dont tar everyone with the same brush
Firstly whoever told Ragman of Basingstoke that a peaceful protest was 'Bad Behaviour' You sound very educated to me...
Secondly my child abhors smoking so she dosent indulge in or out of school.
The dumb kids he is refering to are our future and my child has never achieved less than a grade A or B
My darling daughter will go on a trip to Paris as soon as the school return her passport
My parenting skills have seen my older children achieve their degrees at university
My childs gradecard which we recieved today quotes 'She is a child able to see both sides of an issue' which obviously you cant.
And lastly, have you ever heard the saying dont tar everyone with the same brush
Posted by: Ragman, Hampshire on 10:41am Tue 22 Jul 08
Mr Mason:
It would seem apparent that your daughter made some bad choices that day. Given the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, would she have made the same choice?
117 kids from a total of 1270 (Ofsted report Dec 2007) equals around 9.2% of the students, this in my eyes is clearly a minority. This minority was trying (hopelessly) to convince the remaining 90% that they were wrong.
I too can see both sides of the argument - one of them is untenable, the other is supported by the majority of the students. My reasoning would be don't waste your time protesting about something which the majority wish to happen anyway.
[quote]Firstly whoever told Ragman of Basingstoke that a peaceful protest was 'Bad Behaviour'[/quote]
Please, since Oct 2007 smoking has been [bold]illegal[/bold] for those under 18 - these kids (maybe not Mr Mason's daughter) were alledged to have been smoking, they are under 18 and must therefore be considered to have been acting illegally (if of course it's true). Illegal behaviour in my opinion most certainly constitutes bad behaviour.
This isn't Stalin's Russia - these kids are to be given [italic]more[/italic] time at lunch. They aren't being forced up chimneys or down coalmines.
As for rewarding a participant in this protest with a trip to Paris - If it was my daughter then she would have been grounded for a year, with pocket money stopped for the same time.
Mr Mason:
It would seem apparent that your daughter made some bad choices that day. Given the benefit of 20:20 hindsight, would she have made the same choice?
117 kids from a total of 1270 (Ofsted report Dec 2007) equals around 9.2% of the students, this in my eyes is clearly a minority. This minority was trying (hopelessly) to convince the remaining 90% that they were wrong.
I too can see both sides of the argument - one of them is untenable, the other is supported by the majority of the students. My reasoning would be don't waste your time protesting about something which the majority wish to happen anyway.
Firstly whoever told Ragman of Basingstoke that a peaceful protest was 'Bad Behaviour'
Please, since Oct 2007 smoking has been
illegal for those under 18 - these kids (maybe not Mr Mason's daughter) were alledged to have been smoking, they are under 18 and must therefore be considered to have been acting illegally (if of course it's true). Illegal behaviour in my opinion most certainly constitutes bad behaviour.
This isn't Stalin's Russia - these kids are to be given
more time at lunch. They aren't being forced up chimneys or down coalmines.
As for rewarding a participant in this protest with a trip to Paris - If it was my daughter then she would have been grounded for a year, with pocket money stopped for the same time.
Posted by: Miles, basingstoke on 1:56pm Tue 22 Jul 08
OK. The children involved made bad choices that day,and should have found more appropriate ways to express their concerns -
However, it is our responsibility and duty as adults,to give them firm guidance, instruction and information when they make bad choices.
From the information I have gleaned about the events, it would appear that a decision was made to NOT communicate with the children in any way. They were NOT advised by staff that they were acting inappropriately; they were NOT instructed at any point to return to lessons immediately; and they were NOT advised that failure to do so would result in exclusion.
Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned, but to me it is simple common sense when a child is misbehaving to tell them to stop, stop now, or face the consequences. Why was this not done immediately or at any point during the day?
Also, there were a great many more than the number quoted that took part in the protest at various times during the day. Only a particular section of the protestors were excluded; many have had no saction whatsoever; others have had their exclusions reversed because when they attempted to return to lessons they were prevented from doing by staff, allegedly under instruction from Mr Eyre. Fair? what do you think?
In addition to the above, it seems that the due consideration and procedure that is supposed to be followed prior to excluding even ONE pupil, let alone this huge number, were not considered; the legality of informing parents by text(!) is unclear at this stage and is under investigation and the school now has to set work for all those children, for the full five days (which should be marked), as well as offering them all the chance for individual re-integration interviews. The staff must be thrilled!
So, in my opinion, many people made very poor and ill-conceived choices and decisions that day - most of them were children who need to learn how to behave better! However, some were trained professionals and should know better already!
OK. The children involved made bad choices that day,and should have found more appropriate ways to express their concerns -
However, it is our responsibility and duty as adults,to give them firm guidance, instruction and information when they make bad choices.
From the information I have gleaned about the events, it would appear that a decision was made to NOT communicate with the children in any way. They were NOT advised by staff that they were acting inappropriately; they were NOT instructed at any point to return to lessons immediately; and they were NOT advised that failure to do so would result in exclusion.
Maybe I'm a bit old fashioned, but to me it is simple common sense when a child is misbehaving to tell them to stop, stop now, or face the consequences. Why was this not done immediately or at any point during the day?
Also, there were a great many more than the number quoted that took part in the protest at various times during the day. Only a particular section of the protestors were excluded; many have had no saction whatsoever; others have had their exclusions reversed because when they attempted to return to lessons they were prevented from doing by staff, allegedly under instruction from Mr Eyre. Fair? what do you think?
In addition to the above, it seems that the due consideration and procedure that is supposed to be followed prior to excluding even ONE pupil, let alone this huge number, were not considered; the legality of informing parents by text(!) is unclear at this stage and is under investigation and the school now has to set work for all those children, for the full five days (which should be marked), as well as offering them all the chance for individual re-integration interviews. The staff must be thrilled!
So, in my opinion, many people made very poor and ill-conceived choices and decisions that day - most of them were children who need to learn how to behave better! However, some were trained professionals and should know better already!
Posted by: NotToBeNamed..., Basingstoke on 4:50pm Tue 22 Jul 08
As a student at the school I feel what Mr. Eyre did was wrong. Although I didn't take part in the protest, I feel strongly against the school day and we even started a petition, only to give up after hearing that the petition made against the vertical tutor groups (2006) was completely ignored and we didnt want to waste our time.
Me and many of the other students at the school feel that when Mr. Eyre said to the Gazette [quote]I am very disappointed that the children involved feel that this is the way to put their views forward[/quote] he didn't take into account that this is actually the only way we as students would have our views noticed.
Also, the parents of one of my friends, who had nothing at all to do with the protest, recieved a text saying that she had been suspended. If they are going to give such a massive punishment to people who wish to put across their views, they should at least make sure that they do it properly and don't make any mistakes.
Overall, I think that how Mr. Eyre reacted was wrong and also that he should listen to our views as well because it does affect us too.
As a student at the school I feel what Mr. Eyre did was wrong. Although I didn't take part in the protest, I feel strongly against the school day and we even started a petition, only to give up after hearing that the petition made against the vertical tutor groups (2006) was completely ignored and we didnt want to waste our time.
Me and many of the other students at the school feel that when Mr. Eyre said to the Gazette
I am very disappointed that the children involved feel that this is the way to put their views forward
he didn't take into account that this is actually the only way we as students would have our views noticed.
Also, the parents of one of my friends, who had nothing at all to do with the protest, recieved a text saying that she had been suspended. If they are going to give such a massive punishment to people who wish to put across their views, they should at least make sure that they do it properly and don't make any mistakes.
Overall, I think that how Mr. Eyre reacted was wrong and also that he should listen to our views as well because it does affect us too.
Posted by: laureljaynee, basingstoke on 5:54pm Tue 22 Jul 08
Hey, im a 12 yr old from bhcc. Mr. Eyre is right! The pupils gave no notice before hand that there was going to be a protest and loads of the kids that i kno from my year jst went to skip lessons. itwasn't even a real protest! if it was real then they would have starved at lunch and stood up for their rights! but they still went into the cantine at lunch! They where really disturbing everyone in thier lessons and smoking and drinking and stuff. we all had to go out at 10.00 and get registared to see who was here and not. it was very unfair that we had to be taken out of our lessons.
Mr. Eyre had a meeting about 2 months ago and me and lots of parents went and heard eachothers opinions
only one man objected and gave his reasons as to why the school day shouldnt be changed and Mr. Eyre gave his reasons and ideas which where very fair!
To be honest i would rather not have the school day change but i don't really see what is wrong with having 20 minutes extra at the end of the day! its no biggie!
And he did take into account our views and opinions by passing around a survay.
Mr. Eyre is a very good head teacher at my school and understands our views.
Also, If they wanted to have their say taken more seriously then they should have done their "protest" at the end of the day or in their free time not during their education. Or maybe made those who don't want the school day changed, sign a petition,
Laurel Johnstone, 12
Hey, im a 12 yr old from bhcc. Mr. Eyre is right! The pupils gave no notice before hand that there was going to be a protest and loads of the kids that i kno from my year jst went to skip lessons. itwasn't even a real protest! if it was real then they would have starved at lunch and stood up for their rights! but they still went into the cantine at lunch! They where really disturbing everyone in thier lessons and smoking and drinking and stuff. we all had to go out at 10.00 and get registared to see who was here and not. it was very unfair that we had to be taken out of our lessons.
Mr. Eyre had a meeting about 2 months ago and me and lots of parents went and heard eachothers opinions
only one man objected and gave his reasons as to why the school day shouldnt be changed and Mr. Eyre gave his reasons and ideas which where very fair!
To be honest i would rather not have the school day change but i don't really see what is wrong with having 20 minutes extra at the end of the day! its no biggie!
And he did take into account our views and opinions by passing around a survay.
Mr. Eyre is a very good head teacher at my school and understands our views.
Also, If they wanted to have their say taken more seriously then they should have done their "protest" at the end of the day or in their free time not during their education. Or maybe made those who don't want the school day changed, sign a petition,
Laurel Johnstone, 12
Posted by: mason, basingstoke on 7:23pm Tue 22 Jul 08
I agree with the student strike because......
1)At no time did the school take the crucial step of listening to the pupils who were protesting peacefully.
Most young adults and teenagers state that they want to be listened to.(childline statistics prove this)
2)The 20 mins extra a day is for playground time-not for education. Most pupils dont want an extra 20 mins with the playground bullies (childline statics prove this)
3)in the wintertime the pupils with extra curriculum activities will be leaving the school in the dark.
4)at no time did any of the teachers/adults communicate to the pupils that they would be excluded from school for this action.
5)Different pupils got different punishments
I agree with the student strike because......
1)At no time did the school take the crucial step of listening to the pupils who were protesting peacefully.
Most young adults and teenagers state that they want to be listened to.(childline statistics prove this)
2)The 20 mins extra a day is for playground time-not for education. Most pupils dont want an extra 20 mins with the playground bullies (childline statics prove this)
3)in the wintertime the pupils with extra curriculum activities will be leaving the school in the dark.
4)at no time did any of the teachers/adults communicate to the pupils that they would be excluded from school for this action.
5)Different pupils got different punishments
Posted by: Concerned Parent, Hatch Warren on 9:30pm Tue 22 Jul 08
I write as the father of a boy in Year 9 who was excluded for taking part in the protest. When I was notified of his exclusion by text message in the evening of the protest I immediately attempted to contact the school, but there was no reply. I tried again the following day without success - my wife then visited the school to seek an explanation but was told no-one was available to discuss it. I can't believe it would have been impossible for Mr Eyre to provide a brief written statement, to be collected from the school's reception, outlining the reasons for his decision. Even the letter concerning the exclusion, which finally arrived on Saturday, was a standard letter making no reference to the incident itself.
I wonder how Mr Eyre reconciles his latest actions with the comments of OFSTED in December 2007 that "the
current senior leaders are very concerned to break the earlier cycles of high numbers of
exclusions in previous years, caused by disproportionate sanctions for misdemeanours."?
I can find no evidence that this protest involved any illegal acts, nor that it unduly disrupted the school day. It's regrettable that Miss Johnstone (above) had a lesson interrupted, but it's hard to see why names of non-protestors could not have been taken within teaching groups instead.
I'm afraid Ragman's comments (above) defy all logic. He has somehow heard of various illegal acts which he associates with the protest. When he says "these kids" were smoking, leaving the site and so forth - does he believe they were ALL doing these things? Perhaps he believes those who were not are guilty by association and deserve equal punishment. I would be aghast if I discovered my son had been found smoking and very concerned if he had left the site during the day, and would support an appropriate punishment for that - provided I was informed of the allegation.
Also, Ragman, it's a sad day for democracy if a movement with only around 10% of support ought to just give up trying to make its voice heard. Will you break the news to the Green Party, UKIP and the like, or shall I?
How should Mr Eyre have handled the protest? At least three options come readily to mind, all (in my opinion) better than the actions he took:
1. Let the protest run its course all day, then use the text message system to advise parents that any pupil attempting to continue the protest after that day would be excluded - and that a statement about the changes and his response to the protest was available at reception.
2. Ensure all the protestors were spoken to after an hour or two and given a straight choice - return to lessons or be excluded.
3. (Best of all, to my mind.) Tell the protestors to elect a small delegation, meet with the delegation and talk his decision about the change of hours through with them. Be firm - I don't think there's ever been any question of the changes being reversed - but be fair, show them they are being listened to, then ask them to try to persuade the rest of the protestors to return. If that didn't work, then take sanctions as above.
As things stand, I feel Mr Eyre has made things more difficult for himself and will find it hard to head off future protests.
I write as the father of a boy in Year 9 who was excluded for taking part in the protest. When I was notified of his exclusion by text message in the evening of the protest I immediately attempted to contact the school, but there was no reply. I tried again the following day without success - my wife then visited the school to seek an explanation but was told no-one was available to discuss it. I can't believe it would have been impossible for Mr Eyre to provide a brief written statement, to be collected from the school's reception, outlining the reasons for his decision. Even the letter concerning the exclusion, which finally arrived on Saturday, was a standard letter making no reference to the incident itself.
I wonder how Mr Eyre reconciles his latest actions with the comments of OFSTED in December 2007 that "the
current senior leaders are very concerned to break the earlier cycles of high numbers of
exclusions in previous years, caused by disproportionate sanctions for misdemeanours."?
I can find no evidence that this protest involved any illegal acts, nor that it unduly disrupted the school day. It's regrettable that Miss Johnstone (above) had a lesson interrupted, but it's hard to see why names of non-protestors could not have been taken within teaching groups instead.
I'm afraid Ragman's comments (above) defy all logic. He has somehow heard of various illegal acts which he associates with the protest. When he says "these kids" were smoking, leaving the site and so forth - does he believe they were ALL doing these things? Perhaps he believes those who were not are guilty by association and deserve equal punishment. I would be aghast if I discovered my son had been found smoking and very concerned if he had left the site during the day, and would support an appropriate punishment for that - provided I was informed of the allegation.
Also, Ragman, it's a sad day for democracy if a movement with only around 10% of support ought to just give up trying to make its voice heard. Will you break the news to the Green Party, UKIP and the like, or shall I?
How should Mr Eyre have handled the protest? At least three options come readily to mind, all (in my opinion) better than the actions he took:
1. Let the protest run its course all day, then use the text message system to advise parents that any pupil attempting to continue the protest after that day would be excluded - and that a statement about the changes and his response to the protest was available at reception.
2. Ensure all the protestors were spoken to after an hour or two and given a straight choice - return to lessons or be excluded.
3. (Best of all, to my mind.) Tell the protestors to elect a small delegation, meet with the delegation and talk his decision about the change of hours through with them. Be firm - I don't think there's ever been any question of the changes being reversed - but be fair, show them they are being listened to, then ask them to try to persuade the rest of the protestors to return. If that didn't work, then take sanctions as above.
As things stand, I feel Mr Eyre has made things more difficult for himself and will find it hard to head off future protests.
Posted by: berkshirelad, Berkshire on 10:28pm Tue 22 Jul 08
[quote]Please, since Oct 2007 smoking has been illegal for those under 18 - these kids (maybe not Mr Mason's daughter) were alledged to have been smoking, they are under 18 and must therefore be considered to have been acting illegally (if of course it's true). Illegal behaviour in my opinion most certainly constitutes bad behaviour.[/quote]
Wrong, totally wrong.
The only illegality is [bold]purchasing[/bold] cigarettes under the age of 18. Possession or, heaven forfend, smoking is not illegal; so there is no [bold]illegal[/bold] behaviour, only a breach of school rules
Please, since Oct 2007 smoking has been illegal for those under 18 - these kids (maybe not Mr Mason's daughter) were alledged to have been smoking, they are under 18 and must therefore be considered to have been acting illegally (if of course it's true). Illegal behaviour in my opinion most certainly constitutes bad behaviour.
Wrong, totally wrong.
The only illegality is
purchasing cigarettes under the age of 18. Possession or, heaven forfend, smoking is not illegal; so there is no
illegal behaviour, only a breach of school rules
Posted by: Ragman, Hampshire on 10:44pm Tue 22 Jul 08
I agree with the student strike because......
1)At no time did the school take the crucial step of listening to the pupils who were protesting peacefully.
Most young adults and teenagers state that they want to be listened to.(childline statistics prove this)
2)The 20 mins extra a day is for playground time-not for education. Most pupils dont want an extra 20 mins with the playground bullies (childline statics prove this)
3)in the wintertime the pupils with extra curriculum activities will be leaving the school in the dark.
4)at no time did any of the teachers/adults communicate to the pupils that they would be excluded from school for this action.
5)Different pupils got different punishments
I agree with the student strike because......
1)At no time did the school take the crucial step of listening to the pupils who were protesting peacefully.
Most young adults and teenagers state that they want to be listened to.(childline statistics prove this)
2)The 20 mins extra a day is for playground time-not for education. Most pupils dont want an extra 20 mins with the playground bullies (childline statics prove this)
3)in the wintertime the pupils with extra curriculum activities will be leaving the school in the dark.
4)at no time did any of the teachers/adults communicate to the pupils that they would be excluded from school for this action.
5)Different pupils got different punishments
Posted by: Ragman, Hampshire on 10:48pm Tue 22 Jul 08
[quote][bold]berkshirelad[/bold] wrote:
[quote]Please, since Oct 2007 smoking has been illegal for those under 18 - these kids (maybe not Mr Mason's daughter) were alledged to have been smoking, they are under 18 and must therefore be considered to have been acting illegally (if of course it's true). Illegal behaviour in my opinion most certainly constitutes bad behaviour.[/quote] Wrong, totally wrong. The only illegality is [bold]purchasing[/bold] cigarettes under the age of 18. Possession or, heaven forfend, smoking is not illegal; so there is no [bold]illegal[/bold] behaviour, only a breach of school rules[/quote] Your are correct, I read that incorrectly.
However as you point out it is a breach of school rules and let's be honest here would you suggest to the average 13 year old that smoking was a good thing to do?
I accept that smoking on the grounds was not illegal, not an example of good behaviour either.
berkshirelad wrote:
Please, since Oct 2007 smoking has been illegal for those under 18 - these kids (maybe not Mr Mason's daughter) were alledged to have been smoking, they are under 18 and must therefore be considered to have been acting illegally (if of course it's true). Illegal behaviour in my opinion most certainly constitutes bad behaviour.
Wrong, totally wrong. The only illegality is purchasing cigarettes under the age of 18. Possession or, heaven forfend, smoking is not illegal; so there is no illegal behaviour, only a breach of school rules
Your are correct, I read that incorrectly.
However as you point out it is a breach of school rules and let's be honest here would you suggest to the average 13 year old that smoking was a good thing to do?
I accept that smoking on the grounds was not illegal, not an example of good behaviour either.
Posted by: Ragman, Hampshire on 10:51pm Tue 22 Jul 08
My earlier post appears to be a straight copy of Mr Mason's - I am not a plagerist, it should have read as follows...
Mr Mason wrote
I agree with the student strike because......
1)At no time did the school take the crucial step of listening to the pupils who were protesting peacefully.
Please, protesting peacefully is sitting down and not moving. Setting fires, underage smoking (Sorry – not your daughter – she abhors it), disrupting kids that aren’t taking part in an unjustified ‘stunt’ – is NOT peaceful by any deluded stretch of the imagination.
You keep repeating that this was a peaceful protest, are you hoping that eventually you will convince people that it was peaceful? It wasn’t.
Most young adults and teenagers state that they want to be listened to.(childline statistics prove this)
So do a lot of adults – but there would be anarchy if we all acted in the same manner.
2)The 20 mins extra a day is for playground time-not for education. Most pupils dont want an extra 20 mins with the playground bullies (childline statics prove this)
Is there any hard evidence that bullying is a problem at this school?
3)in the wintertime the pupils with extra curriculum activities will be leaving the school in the dark.
Come on – 20 minutes is not going to make that big a difference.
4)at no time did any of the teachers/adults communicate to the pupils that they would be excluded from school for this action.
Listen, I knew they would be suspended and I am not a teacher at this school, if these kids (or their parents) couldn’t work that out then I worry for our futures.
5)Different pupils got different punishments
Different kids committed different acts of rule transgression, they got what they deserved.
I understand that you feel aggrieved; however you need to understand that Mr Eyre didn’t start that day planning to suspend a bunch of kids – they made the bad decision – he reacted. Maybe your disappointment should be directed towards your daughter, not the staff who responded to her bad behaviour.
My earlier post appears to be a straight copy of Mr Mason's - I am not a plagerist, it should have read as follows...
Mr Mason wrote
I agree with the student strike because......
1)At no time did the school take the crucial step of listening to the pupils who were protesting peacefully.
Please, protesting peacefully is sitting down and not moving. Setting fires, underage smoking (Sorry – not your daughter – she abhors it), disrupting kids that aren’t taking part in an unjustified ‘stunt’ – is NOT peaceful by any deluded stretch of the imagination.
You keep repeating that this was a peaceful protest, are you hoping that eventually you will convince people that it was peaceful? It wasn’t.
Most young adults and teenagers state that they want to be listened to.(childline statistics prove this)
So do a lot of adults – but there would be anarchy if we all acted in the same manner.
2)The 20 mins extra a day is for playground time-not for education. Most pupils dont want an extra 20 mins with the playground bullies (childline statics prove this)
Is there any hard evidence that bullying is a problem at this school?
3)in the wintertime the pupils with extra curriculum activities will be leaving the school in the dark.
Come on – 20 minutes is not going to make that big a difference.
4)at no time did any of the teachers/adults communicate to the pupils that they would be excluded from school for this action.
Listen, I knew they would be suspended and I am not a teacher at this school, if these kids (or their parents) couldn’t work that out then I worry for our futures.
5)Different pupils got different punishments
Different kids committed different acts of rule transgression, they got what they deserved.
I understand that you feel aggrieved; however you need to understand that Mr Eyre didn’t start that day planning to suspend a bunch of kids – they made the bad decision – he reacted. Maybe your disappointment should be directed towards your daughter, not the staff who responded to her bad behaviour.
Posted by: Ragman, Hampshire on 11:16pm Tue 22 Jul 08
Concerened parent:
[quote]I'm afraid Ragman's comments (above) defy all logic [/quote]
You are upset with my comments?
[quote] When I was notified of his exclusion by text message in the evening of the protest I immediately attempted to contact the school, but there was no reply.[quote]
And my comments defy logic, come on.
[quote] Also, Ragman, it's a sad day for democracy if a movement with only around 10% of support ought to just give up trying to make its voice heard. Will you break the news to the Green Party, UKIP and the like, or shall I?[quote]
I won’t waste my time – you feel free - I believe that they are already aware that they are unlikely to gain power in the foreseeable future.
Again it would seem to me that your passion is misdirected – you need to direct some more attention to your son who felt the need to become involved.
[quote] As things stand, I feel Mr Eyre has made things more difficult for himself and will find it hard to head off future protests.[quote]
You say my comments defy logic?
As I see it Mr Eyre has drawn a line in the sand, you cross it and expect there to be consequences. If you can’t deal with the level of discipline that he is using then you have the choice to send your son to another school, I believe Aldworth Science College is just around the corner.
Concerened parent:
I'm afraid Ragman's comments (above) defy all logic
You are upset with my comments?
When I was notified of his exclusion by text message in the evening of the protest I immediately attempted to contact the school, but there was no reply.
And my comments defy logic, come on.
Also, Ragman, it's a sad day for democracy if a movement with only around 10% of support ought to just give up trying to make its voice heard. Will you break the news to the Green Party, UKIP and the like, or shall I?
I won’t waste my time – you feel free - I believe that they are already aware that they are unlikely to gain power in the foreseeable future.
Again it would seem to me that your passion is misdirected – you need to direct some more attention to your son who felt the need to become involved.
As things stand, I feel Mr Eyre has made things more difficult for himself and will find it hard to head off future protests.
You say my comments defy logic?
As I see it Mr Eyre has drawn a line in the sand, you cross it and expect there to be consequences. If you can’t deal with the level of discipline that he is using then you have the choice to send your son to another school, I believe Aldworth Science College is just around the corner.
Posted by: T.Wee, Basingstoke on 11:58pm Tue 22 Jul 08
As a former student at Brighton Hill I can understand how some of the students felt. I left in 2007 and this strike only reminds me of the time when my year struck up a protest on the school field against the vertical tutoring system.
As some people have already stated, the students tried to speak to Mr Eyre prior to the strike about their feelings through a petition but gave up when they remembered how they had dealt with the petition we handed them only a year ago. Our petition was ripped up in front of us and thrown in the bin - is this the actions of responsible teachers?
We felt helpless and couldn't think of any other way to grab Mr Eyers attention, hence the strike.
However, the way this strike was handled by the students was dissapointing. It was not organised at all. If the students felt strongly about what they were doing they wouldn't have felt the need to smoke, drink and run around like idiots. They wanted the chance to be listened to as adults and instead they acted childishly. These were not the actions of students that cared deeply over what they were doing. We on the other hand elected students to speak to Mr Eyer about how we felt as a whole. He listened but unfortunatly for us he felt we were in the minority and continued with his plans. We handeled the situation much more maturely hence why it did not end in the suspension of over 100 kids.
Although I can understand the frustration of the students involved, they clearly went the wrong way about it. Mr Eyre was right to suspend them. They needed to know that their actions have consequences, the real world won't be so kind.
On the other hand, the ban on the Paris Trip was a bit much, why should some students suffer more than others? And at no time were the students warned of their actions...
All in all this whole protest has been blown way out of proportion! As another person has stated 'mistakes were made by all'. In the end of it all I bet the students will come to enjoy their extended lunch, the same way the majority of our year came to find the vertical tutoring not all bad. Granted I would have preferred the old system, but at the end of the day, things change. I hope these students will mature enough over the summer to realise that it's really not that bad!
As a former student at Brighton Hill I can understand how some of the students felt. I left in 2007 and this strike only reminds me of the time when my year struck up a protest on the school field against the vertical tutoring system.
As some people have already stated, the students tried to speak to Mr Eyre prior to the strike about their feelings through a petition but gave up when they remembered how they had dealt with the petition we handed them only a year ago. Our petition was ripped up in front of us and thrown in the bin - is this the actions of responsible teachers?
We felt helpless and couldn't think of any other way to grab Mr Eyers attention, hence the strike.
However, the way this strike was handled by the students was dissapointing. It was not organised at all. If the students felt strongly about what they were doing they wouldn't have felt the need to smoke, drink and run around like idiots. They wanted the chance to be listened to as adults and instead they acted childishly. These were not the actions of students that cared deeply over what they were doing. We on the other hand elected students to speak to Mr Eyer about how we felt as a whole. He listened but unfortunatly for us he felt we were in the minority and continued with his plans. We handeled the situation much more maturely hence why it did not end in the suspension of over 100 kids.
Although I can understand the frustration of the students involved, they clearly went the wrong way about it. Mr Eyre was right to suspend them. They needed to know that their actions have consequences, the real world won't be so kind.
On the other hand, the ban on the Paris Trip was a bit much, why should some students suffer more than others? And at no time were the students warned of their actions...
All in all this whole protest has been blown way out of proportion! As another person has stated 'mistakes were made by all'. In the end of it all I bet the students will come to enjoy their extended lunch, the same way the majority of our year came to find the vertical tutoring not all bad. Granted I would have preferred the old system, but at the end of the day, things change. I hope these students will mature enough over the summer to realise that it's really not that bad!
Posted by: unknown on 9:21am Wed 23 Jul 08
as students of brighton hill community college. We can agree that is was silly of some students to protest, but it was also silly of Mr eyre to think that the school day needs to change. We think that the lunch time is already boring as there is nothing to do and no-one would patispate in games anway as it is know not be 'cool'.
As for Mr. Ragman saying that we are dumb that we protested is out of order. in this school if you put your opinions across in a quite mannor nothing happens so as students we thought that we need to do more and gets our points across. It is the only way that anything will change.
Anoyn.
as students of brighton hill community college. We can agree that is was silly of some students to protest, but it was also silly of Mr eyre to think that the school day needs to change. We think that the lunch time is already boring as there is nothing to do and no-one would patispate in games anway as it is know not be 'cool'.
As for Mr. Ragman saying that we are dumb that we protested is out of order. in this school if you put your opinions across in a quite mannor nothing happens so as students we thought that we need to do more and gets our points across. It is the only way that anything will change.
Anoyn.
Posted by: Ratman, basingstoke on 10:10am Wed 23 Jul 08
This was not the benign peaceful protest that some people are making it out to be, in particular some of the parents who have made comments in the press
Firstly, the pupils gave no warning that they would protest. They just walked out on the field. I think you would find that if you gave no warning and walked out in protest you would loose you job. There are procedures to follow before you can legally protest. This pupils did not attempt to make their opinions known through any other means before they resorted to protesting.
Secondly, some pupils were smoking and drinking on the field. This is clearly in violation of school rules, if not national laws. Some of the protesting pupils were also going off-site, mainly to the Asda across the road. There were also some older teenagers from the local area that joined in. Overall, this gives the impression that some of 'protesters' saw this as a lark rather than an expression of democracy.
Thirdly, the main 'ring leaders' were from the hard core of the school's behaviour problems. Unfortunately , this hard core knows far more about their rights than they do their responsibilities. I am in no way suggesting that every child who took part is a behvaviour problem . However, they did allow themselves to be easily swayed into making bad choices. Remember that the overwhelming majority of the school choose not to protest, but to attend classes as normal.
Finally, there were fights, kids chasing each other around, including through the school, and a great deal of foul, abusive language directed at staff and fellow pupils.
Only pupils who stayed on the field for the entire day were excluded or were involved in smoking, drinking and fighting were excluded.
As to the criticism that more could have been done to get the pupils back in school, I ask how many of you would have been willing to face such a large group of teenagers, some who had been drinking and were showing sings of aggression? Large groups of people can behave in unexpected and often violent ways. Should the rest of the school have been sent home so that a large group of teachers could deal with the 'protesters'? This would have disrupted the learning of the other 90% of the school. What about the police? Maybe they could have come out in full riot gear and 'forced' the pupils back to class. Or perhaps they could have used water canons.
I fully support what the headteacher had done. His responsibility is to the majority of pupils who were not disrupting learning. He also took into account the health and safety of his staff and the rest of the college when making decisions in how to deal with the protest. It is a shame that more headteachers don't have the courage to do so.
This was not the benign peaceful protest that some people are making it out to be, in particular some of the parents who have made comments in the press
Firstly, the pupils gave no warning that they would protest. They just walked out on the field. I think you would find that if you gave no warning and walked out in protest you would loose you job. There are procedures to follow before you can legally protest. This pupils did not attempt to make their opinions known through any other means before they resorted to protesting.
Secondly, some pupils were smoking and drinking on the field. This is clearly in violation of school rules, if not national laws. Some of the protesting pupils were also going off-site, mainly to the Asda across the road. There were also some older teenagers from the local area that joined in. Overall, this gives the impression that some of 'protesters' saw this as a lark rather than an expression of democracy.
Thirdly, the main 'ring leaders' were from the hard core of the school's behaviour problems. Unfortunately , this hard core knows far more about their rights than they do their responsibilities. I am in no way suggesting that every child who took part is a behvaviour problem . However, they did allow themselves to be easily swayed into making bad choices. Remember that the overwhelming majority of the school choose not to protest, but to attend classes as normal.
Finally, there were fights, kids chasing each other around, including through the school, and a great deal of foul, abusive language directed at staff and fellow pupils.
Only pupils who stayed on the field for the entire day were excluded or were involved in smoking, drinking and fighting were excluded.
As to the criticism that more could have been done to get the pupils back in school, I ask how many of you would have been willing to face such a large group of teenagers, some who had been drinking and were showing sings of aggression? Large groups of people can behave in unexpected and often violent ways. Should the rest of the school have been sent home so that a large group of teachers could deal with the 'protesters'? This would have disrupted the learning of the other 90% of the school. What about the police? Maybe they could have come out in full riot gear and 'forced' the pupils back to class. Or perhaps they could have used water canons.
I fully support what the headteacher had done. His responsibility is to the majority of pupils who were not disrupting learning. He also took into account the health and safety of his staff and the rest of the college when making decisions in how to deal with the protest. It is a shame that more headteachers don't have the courage to do so.
Posted by: dessie, orlando on 9:51pm Wed 23 Jul 08
I would have thought that a better way to punish the children would have been to detain them after school and give some of them the much needed extra classes (with proper notice to the parents of course). Giving them the rest of the term "off" was not a punishment in my eyes.
I would have thought that a better way to punish the children would have been to detain them after school and give some of them the much needed extra classes (with proper notice to the parents of course). Giving them the rest of the term "off" was not a punishment in my eyes.
Posted by: not to be named, basingstoke on 9:56am Thu 24 Jul 08
as a year 9 student at brighton hill i think that protesting was the right thing to do, it's the only way Mr Eyre would listen to us, and we should get a say in what the school does after all we do attend it 5 days a week. i did not protest for the whole day as i didnt want to miss the last few days of year 9. i think that Mr Eyre could of thought of better punishments other than excluding them, as they have now had a week extra holiday for doing a bad thing!! i am very annoyed because when i was in year 7 Mr Eyre decided to change our tutor groups and lunches round and now he is using the excuse that he is only doing it because we complained about not being able to see all our friends at lunch but that was 2 years ago and now we have got used to it the way it is he wants to change it all around again!!
a half hour lunch at the moment is very boring and after eating our lunch we have nothing to do. the toilets are usually locked or we get kicked out of the corridors therefore we can't even go to our lockers. i would not mind changes in the school if Mr Eyre listened to us before hand. he says that he sent out surveys to us, but everyone that i'v spoken to hasn't filled anything in.
whilst the protest was taking place last week, every teacher that we spoke to in class said that if we had decided to protest a little earlier they to would have joined in. Mr Eyre seems to be making all the changes to make our school look better than all the rest, but 2 protests in 2 years, doesn't look very good does it? hes obviously doing something wrong!!!
as a year 9 student at brighton hill i think that protesting was the right thing to do, it's the only way Mr Eyre would listen to us, and we should get a say in what the school does after all we do attend it 5 days a week. i did not protest for the whole day as i didnt want to miss the last few days of year 9. i think that Mr Eyre could of thought of better punishments other than excluding them, as they have now had a week extra holiday for doing a bad thing!! i am very annoyed because when i was in year 7 Mr Eyre decided to change our tutor groups and lunches round and now he is using the excuse that he is only doing it because we complained about not being able to see all our friends at lunch but that was 2 years ago and now we have got used to it the way it is he wants to change it all around again!!
a half hour lunch at the moment is very boring and after eating our lunch we have nothing to do. the toilets are usually locked or we get kicked out of the corridors therefore we can't even go to our lockers. i would not mind changes in the school if Mr Eyre listened to us before hand. he says that he sent out surveys to us, but everyone that i'v spoken to hasn't filled anything in.
whilst the protest was taking place last week, every teacher that we spoke to in class said that if we had decided to protest a little earlier they to would have joined in. Mr Eyre seems to be making all the changes to make our school look better than all the rest, but 2 protests in 2 years, doesn't look very good does it? hes obviously doing something wrong!!!
Posted by: not to be named, basingstoke on 10:33am Thu 24 Jul 08
continued from above.
people who are saying protesting was stupid.
we did try signing partitions and giving them to him, but they got riped up in our faces
continued from above.
people who are saying protesting was stupid.
we did try signing partitions and giving them to him, but they got riped up in our faces
Posted by: mh, Basingstoke on 1:15pm Thu 24 Jul 08
I thought we lived in a democracy which allowed people to demonstrate their objections.
In this case my understanding is that opinions on this matter were requested some time ago from staff, parents and pupils. The result was reported as an overwhelming NO to changing the school day. However in an internal meeting the reponse from My Eyre was that was his decision and subject closed. If Mr Eyre had only one outcome in mind, why bother to ask opinions and then reject them out of hand.
If this is the way the school is being run is it any surprise that it is no longer the school that parents are trying to get their children into. From my own experience as a parent I believe this was starting before Mr Eyre tookover, but matters have escalated during his time in charge. I am glad that my child is no longer there and if the decision was made again the school would be my last choice.
The situation looks like Mr Eyre has lost control of the school and is struggling to maintain any level of respect. A high turnover of staff, lip service to parent's complaints, sending notice of dismissal by text !
I call on the school governors to review this situation properly and the position of Mr Eyre with urgency.
As anyone knows it takes a lot of work to get a bunch of teenagers interested enough to do anything. so getting 100+ together on one issue demonstrates just how deeply the issue has affected them.
I thought we lived in a democracy which allowed people to demonstrate their objections.
In this case my understanding is that opinions on this matter were requested some time ago from staff, parents and pupils. The result was reported as an overwhelming NO to changing the school day. However in an internal meeting the reponse from My Eyre was that was his decision and subject closed. If Mr Eyre had only one outcome in mind, why bother to ask opinions and then reject them out of hand.
If this is the way the school is being run is it any surprise that it is no longer the school that parents are trying to get their children into. From my own experience as a parent I believe this was starting before Mr Eyre tookover, but matters have escalated during his time in charge. I am glad that my child is no longer there and if the decision was made again the school would be my last choice.
The situation looks like Mr Eyre has lost control of the school and is struggling to maintain any level of respect. A high turnover of staff, lip service to parent's complaints, sending notice of dismissal by text !
I call on the school governors to review this situation properly and the position of Mr Eyre with urgency.
As anyone knows it takes a lot of work to get a bunch of teenagers interested enough to do anything. so getting 100+ together on one issue demonstrates just how deeply the issue has affected them.
Posted by: Ragman, Hampshire on 1:51pm Thu 24 Jul 08
mh wrote:
[quote]I am glad that my child is no longer there and if the decision was made again the school would be my last choice.[/quote]
and then..
[quote]I call on the school governors to review this situation properly and the position of Mr Eyre with urgency.[/quote]
Why does it matter to you? Your child no longer goes there.
Personally I like the idea that Mr Eyre is imposing his authority on the school, as this will ensure the students are ready for the world of work (even the Unison members gave proper notice.)
As Ratman succintly put it....
[quote]I think you would find that if you gave no warning and walked out in protest you would loose you job.[/quote]
mh wrote:
[quote]If this is the way the school is being run is it any surprise that it is no longer the school that parents are trying to get their children into. [/quote]
Which school is now the school of choice? I need to know as it does affect me.
mh wrote:
I am glad that my child is no longer there and if the decision was made again the school would be my last choice.
and then..
I call on the school governors to review this situation properly and the position of Mr Eyre with urgency.
Why does it matter to you? Your child no longer goes there.
Personally I like the idea that Mr Eyre is imposing his authority on the school, as this will ensure the students are ready for the world of work (even the Unison members gave proper notice.)
As Ratman succintly put it....
I think you would find that if you gave no warning and walked out in protest you would loose you job.
mh wrote:
If this is the way the school is being run is it any surprise that it is no longer the school that parents are trying to get their children into.
Which school is now the school of choice? I need to know as it does affect me.
Posted by: Ragman, Hampshire on 3:38pm Thu 24 Jul 08
mh wrote:
[quote]I am glad that my child is no longer there and if the decision was made again the school would be my last choice.[/quote]
and then..
[quote]I call on the school governors to review this situation properly and the position of Mr Eyre with urgency.[/quote]
Why does it matter to you? Your child no longer goes there.
Personally I like the idea that Mr Eyre is imposing his authority on the school, as this will ensure the students are ready for the world of work (even the Unison members gave proper notice.)
As Ratman succintly put it....
[quote]I think you would find that if you gave no warning and walked out in protest you would loose you job.[/quote]
mh wrote:
[quote]If this is the way the school is being run is it any surprise that it is no longer the school that parents are trying to get their children into. [/quote]
Which school is now the school of choice? I need to know as it does affect me.
mh wrote:
I am glad that my child is no longer there and if the decision was made again the school would be my last choice.
and then..
I call on the school governors to review this situation properly and the position of Mr Eyre with urgency.
Why does it matter to you? Your child no longer goes there.
Personally I like the idea that Mr Eyre is imposing his authority on the school, as this will ensure the students are ready for the world of work (even the Unison members gave proper notice.)
As Ratman succintly put it....
I think you would find that if you gave no warning and walked out in protest you would loose you job.
mh wrote:
If this is the way the school is being run is it any surprise that it is no longer the school that parents are trying to get their children into.
Which school is now the school of choice? I need to know as it does affect me.
Posted by: mason, basingstoke on 11:48am Fri 25 Jul 08
Thank you Mr Eyre
Today We recieved your letter of apology.Your descision to resind the five day exclusion has made a lot of parents and children happy.I do hope that in the future you listen to the children and take into account their opinions.
After all they are the future of Britain.Mr Ragman on the other hand is part of the past.
Thank you Mr Eyre
Today We recieved your letter of apology.Your descision to resind the five day exclusion has made a lot of parents and children happy.I do hope that in the future you listen to the children and take into account their opinions.
After all they are the future of Britain.Mr Ragman on the other hand is part of the past.
Posted by: Anon on 2:31pm Fri 25 Jul 08
whats the chance you could put the full text from the apology on hear so we can all read it.
whats the chance you could put the full text from the apology on hear so we can all read it.
Posted by: Ragman, Hampshire on 9:34am Sat 26 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Anon[/bold] wrote:
whats the chance you could put the full text from the apology on hear so we can all read it.[/quote] Come on Mr Mason - I'm intrigued.
Anon wrote:
whats the chance you could put the full text from the apology on hear so we can all read it.
Come on Mr Mason - I'm intrigued.
Posted by: Jacques Meahoff, 765-088 on 1:39pm Tue 29 Jul 08
Perhaps he's in Paris? ;-)
Perhaps he's in Paris? ;-)
Posted by: not to be named, basingstoke on 9:03pm Mon 25 Aug 08
got a letter the other day to say the school day is not changing after all (:
got a letter the other day to say the school day is not changing after all (:
Posted by: Ragman, Hampshire on 9:53am Wed 27 Aug 08
[quote][bold]not to be named[/bold] wrote:
got a letter the other day to say the school day is not changing after all (:[/quote] The letter I read stated that the times wouldn't be changing [italic]this year[/italic] , but they [bold]would[/bold] be changing in 2009.
not to be named wrote:
got a letter the other day to say the school day is not changing after all (:
The letter I read stated that the times wouldn't be changing
this year , but they
would be changing in 2009.
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
