St Matthew's Academy

David Martin

On Mar 4, 8:50 pm, Ian Smith <i...@astounding.org.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, m...@stmatthewacademy.co.uk <> wrote:
> > The original site was tucked away at the front of the building
>
> Eh? As opposed to prominently on show round the back?

Round the back may be more 'out front' in terms of being overlooked by
those with a vested interest in cycle security.

...d

Dave Larrington

In news:slrnfsrdhh.ru2.ian@acheron.smithnet,
Ian Smith <ian@astounding.org.uk> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, mcr@stmatthewacademy.co.uk <> wrote:
>
>> The original site was tucked away at the front of the building
>
> Eh? As opposed to prominently on show round the back?

With a sign on it saying "Beware of the leopard".

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Mushroom! Mushroom!

Adam Lea

<mcr@stmatthewacademy.co.uk> wrote in message
news:f03fbc45-e8cb-43d9-a405-ba934ef52017@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Why did no-one simply e-mail or phone and ask why the cycle hoops had
> disappeared from their original site?

Because some people prefer to resort to nasty cynicism rather than get the
facts first.

Ekul Namsob

<mcr@stmatthewacademy.co.uk> wrote:

> The assumption by some that the Academy has been paid for by a PFI
> arrangement is wrong. The Academy's sponsor is the RC Archdiocese of
> Southwark whose schools it has replaced. The capital for the buildings
> comes from them and directly from the DCSF. The major teaching unions
> are not all entirely against Academies - and their objections are not
> that these schools "exist... to serve shareholders". Their objections
> were almost entirely based on the freedom of Academies to pay more

or less

> than the national payscales for staf and to have different

(i.e. either better or worse)

> hours and conditions.

Thank you very much, however, for your response about the cycle parking.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Trevor A Panther

Purely as a side line could someone ask mcr@stmatthewacademy.co.uk to post
on Usenet in text only and not HTML. I, like many others use a text only news
service.

--
Trevor A Panther
In South Yorkshire,
England, United Kingdom.
www.tapan.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk


"Adam Lea" <asrl07@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:638apaF24k82fU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> <mcr@stmatthewacademy.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f03fbc45-e8cb-43d9-a405-ba934ef52017@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> Why did no-one simply e-mail or phone and ask why the cycle hoops had
>> disappeared from their original site?
>
> Because some people prefer to resort to nasty cynicism rather than get the
> facts first.
>

David Damerell

Quoting Trevor A Panther <tapan@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk>:
>Purely as a side line could someone ask mcr@stmatthewacademy.co.uk to post
>on Usenet in text only and not HTML.

Their original article is not in HTML; it is in plain text.

>I, like many others use a text only news service.

What you use is MSOE. The bare minimum you should do as an MSOE user is
recognise that it will regularly deceive you about the nature of articles
and that you should not make this sort of request. Also, don't top-post,
it gives you crabs.
--
David Damerell <damerell@chiark.greenend.org.uk> flcl?
Today is Monday, March.

Nick

Adam Lea wrote:
> <mcr@stmatthewacademy.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:f03fbc45-e8cb-43d9-a405-ba934ef52017@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> Why did no-one simply e-mail or phone and ask why the cycle hoops had
>> disappeared from their original site?
>
> Because some people prefer to resort to nasty cynicism rather than get the
> facts first.
>
>

I suppose that as you don't subscribe to nasty cynicism you don't feel
the need to lock your car or bike or front door.

Why do you think it inappropriate to discuss how tax payers money is
spent in public?

Mark T

Nick writtificated

> I suppose that as you don't subscribe to nasty cynicism you don't feel
> the need to lock your car or bike or front door.

Not the same at all

> Why do you think it inappropriate to discuss how tax payers money is
> spent in public?

An irrelevent question.

Come on - that post was tantamount to bad trolling.

Nick

Mark T wrote:
> Nick writtificated
>
>> I suppose that as you don't subscribe to nasty cynicism you don't feel
>> the need to lock your car or bike or front door.
>
> Not the same at all

I don't see that, can you explain why.

>
>> Why do you think it inappropriate to discuss how tax payers money is
>> spent in public?
>
> An irrelevent question.
>

No that is exactly the point. Surely if someone has a question about a
public organisation it is reasonable to air that concern in public. Why
do you think they should contact the school first.

> Come on - that post was tantamount to bad trolling.

Just because someone doesn't share your viewpoint/prejudice does not
make them a troll.

Tom Crispin

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:48:24 +0000, Tom Crispin
<kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote:

>On Thursday 28th February 2008, Lewisham's newest secondary school, St
>Matthew's Academy, relocated from the east side of St Joseph's Vale
>(off Belmont Hill) to new buildings on the west side.
>
>Just outside the main entrance, inside the main fence, was a lovely
>bike parking facility, with angled Sheffield stands for an estimated
>100 - 200 bicycles.
>
>The school took possession of its new building on Thursday 21st
>February, and the first thing they did was rip out the Sheffield
>stands, re-tarmac the area, and create extra car parking facilities.
>
>The pupils were never given the chance to use the cycle parking
>facility. And this is our money as taxpayers that is being frittered
>away.

I passed St Matthew's Academy again today and took this photo:
www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/stmatts2
The area where the three mini busses are parked and the green
containers are located is the site of the old 232 place Sheffield
stand cycle park. As you can see, it is in a promenent position at
the front of the building, and is a compound which can be secured
within the St Matthew's Site.

The green containers are three eight unit cycle lockers - giving a
secure good quality facility for up to 24 bikes. Presumably further
eight unit containers will be added to the facility as demand
increases.

Mark T

Nick writtificated

>>> I suppose that as you don't subscribe to nasty cynicism you don't
>>> feel the need to lock your car or bike or front door.
>>
>> Not the same at all
>
> I don't see that, can you explain why.

I can't really make it any more glaringly obvious. Sorry.

>>> Why do you think it inappropriate to discuss how tax payers money is
>>> spent in public?
>>
>> An irrelevent question.
>
> No that is exactly the point. Surely if someone has a question about a
> public organisation it is reasonable to air that concern in public.

No one said it was unreasonable or innapropriate to discuss that, so
that's why asking why it's unreasonable or innapropriate is an irrelevent
question.

> Why do you think they should contact the school first.

So the Head doesn't come along and make 'em all look like dicks.

>> Come on - that post was tantamount to bad trolling.
>
> Just because someone doesn't share your viewpoint/prejudice does not
> make them a troll.

My accusation of troll like behaviour was *not* made because you don't
share my viewpoint, but because you've written a load of argumentative
nonsense.

Adam Lea

"Nick" <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:63a6c1F26j7dqU1@mid.individual.net...
> Adam Lea wrote:
>> <mcr@stmatthewacademy.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:f03fbc45-e8cb-43d9-a405-ba934ef52017@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> Why did no-one simply e-mail or phone and ask why the cycle hoops had
>>> disappeared from their original site?
>>
>> Because some people prefer to resort to nasty cynicism rather than get
>> the facts first.
>
> I suppose that as you don't subscribe to nasty cynicism you don't feel the
> need to lock your car or bike or front door.

Yes I do, although what that has to do with the subject in discussion I have
no idea.

>
> Why do you think it inappropriate to discuss how tax payers money is spent
> in public?

Please quote where I have stated this or withdraw that remark.

Adam

Nick

Adam Lea wrote:
> "Nick" <Nick.Spam@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:63a6c1F26j7dqU1@mid.individual.net...
>> Adam Lea wrote:
>>> <mcr@stmatthewacademy.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:f03fbc45-e8cb-43d9-a405-ba934ef52017@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>> Why did no-one simply e-mail or phone and ask why the cycle hoops had
>>>> disappeared from their original site?
>>> Because some people prefer to resort to nasty cynicism rather than get
>>> the facts first.
>> I suppose that as you don't subscribe to nasty cynicism you don't feel the
>> need to lock your car or bike or front door.
>
> Yes I do, although what that has to do with the subject in discussion I have
> no idea.
>
>> Why do you think it inappropriate to discuss how tax payers money is spent
>> in public?
>
> Please quote where I have stated this or withdraw that remark.
>

Sorry I thought that is what Colin and Tom were doing, discussing
potential PPP/PFI cockups.

So exactly what was the Nasty Cynicism you referred too?

Nick

Mark T wrote:
> Nick writtificated
>
>>>> I suppose that as you don't subscribe to nasty cynicism you don't
>>>> feel the need to lock your car or bike or front door.
>>> Not the same at all
>> I don't see that, can you explain why.
>
> I can't really make it any more glaringly obvious. Sorry.
>

You could make it much more obvious.

The point is that it is not a good thing to naively trust people to
behave honestly. I can't see why it is OK to distrust strangers but not
to doubt people who work in the public services.


>>>> Why do you think it inappropriate to discuss how tax payers money is
>>>> spent in public?
>>> An irrelevent question.
>> No that is exactly the point. Surely if someone has a question about a
>> public organisation it is reasonable to air that concern in public.
>
> No one said it was unreasonable or innapropriate to discuss that, so
> that's why asking why it's unreasonable or innapropriate is an irrelevent
> question.
>
>> Why do you think they should contact the school first.
>
> So the Head doesn't come along and make 'em all look like dicks.
>

But if Ms Cross does come along and put them right. It will be
transparent and we will have more confidence in the system. I can't see
why secrecy is preferable.


>>> Come on - that post was tantamount to bad trolling.
>> Just because someone doesn't share your viewpoint/prejudice does not
>> make them a troll.
>
> My accusation of troll like behaviour was *not* made because you don't
> share my viewpoint, but because you've written a load of argumentative
> nonsense.

Well I don't know what it is you object to because you won't explain
yourself?