EVERY week we ask our readers a question on a topical issue.
Thursday 24 May 2012
Thursday 24 May 2012
Today
Cloudy
Temperature: 11 C to 18 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: East
Tomorrow
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 15 C
Wind Speed: 14 mph
Wind direction: East
This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.
If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.
Arbroath Herald provides news, events and sport features from the Arbroath area. For the best up to date information relating to Arbroath and the surrounding areas visit us at Arbroath Herald regularly or bookmark this page.
Friday 25 May 2012
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 15 C
Wind Speed: 14 mph
Wind direction: East
Saturday 26 May 2012
Sunny
Temperature: 8 C to 15 C
Wind Speed: 16 mph
Wind direction: East
Sunday 27 May 2012
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 15 C
Wind Speed: 14 mph
Wind direction: East
Monday 28 May 2012
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 18 C
Wind Speed: 13 mph
Wind direction: East
Tuesday 29 May 2012
Sunny spells
Temperature: 8 C to 17 C
Wind Speed: 13 mph
Wind direction: East
Email to a friend
Print this page
Comments
There are 2 comments to this article
Page 1 of 1
Sandy Longmuir
Saturday, February 18, 2012 at 01:25 PMI think there may be something wrong with the way the poll is calculating the responses on both sides. It is particularly difficult to believe that there is this number of cognitively challenged people in Arbroath who think that filling highly paid lawyers' pockets out of taxpayers' hard earned cash is the correct way to go here. Angus Council have been caught manipulating condition and suitability scores of schools for their own ends. Since the rules governing this are classed as "guidance" it could be claimed that Angus Council were within their rights to subvert the process. This ignores completely the fact that throughout the consultation process (and in the letter to the Cabinet Secretary) they repeatedly claimed to be following this guidance to the letter. They have used life-cycle estimates to impact on condition scores - expressly against the rules. They have ignored the fact that suitability assessments should be carried out by Head Teachers and instead every assessment form has been completed by the same individual - the very same individual who altered the surveyor's condition score on Eassie Primary in 2008 (against the guidance) and who also altered surveyor's condition scores for Muirfield, Timmergreens and Wardykes.. The documentary proof for this is overwhelming and the Council have been repeatedly asked to defend the position by parents, by the Information Commissioner and by the Scottish Government. On every occasion they have failed to supply the required documentary proof that condition assessment were undertaken in line with the guidance. If this does come to court it will be interesting to find how many Head Teachers will be willing to sign a legal deposition saying they were responsible for the suitability assessments as required by the guidance. An interesting point on the suitability assessment is that the functionality of all Hayshead classrooms have been given the worst possible rating for suitability (D). This rating is reserved for buildings which "do not support the delivery of services" . Despite the fact that theses rooms have educated generations of children it would appear that their size, layout, flexibility and lighting are no longer capable of delivering education. Despite this there is no provision in the new capital budget to do anything about this for the foreseeable future. Instead it would appear we are to sacrifice the education these 400 children in order to demolish a school (Muirfield) where the classrooms are described as being easily adapted to modern education. Of course the reality is that the classrooms at Hayshead are larger than legally required with large windows and are very conventional in shape. It would be interesting to know if the Head Teacher (who was supposed to assess the rooms) considers them to be unable to deliver the service of education? It may be coincidence but 6 out of 7 schools in Arbroath were downgraded to "C poor" at the same time as it was announced Schools for the Future funding was to be targeted at schools in Scotland graded C or D. It was a stated aim of the Council to apply for this funding for schools in Arbroath. The obvious course of action now is to go back to the school communities and ask again what the people of Arbroath want with a view to bringing forward fresh proposals. It is clear that the people are now energised in the debate and realise that their input can make a difference. Any responsible council and politician would harness that. Instead we are to see a totally insensitive Council attempt to force a decision through the courts against overwhelming evidence simply to indulge the vanity of a handful of individuals.
FMcClymont
Friday, February 17, 2012 at 11:01 AMThe Council's proposal was 'callled in' by the Scottish Government. This was due to the sound and reasonable objections raised by the people directly affected. The public followed democratic process in an open and transparent manner. They were clear; they were opposed to the Arbroath Schools Project. They were fighting to keep their local schools open. Criticism of the proposed 'Project' by the Government concerned the lack of 'transparency' in the manner that council officials had prepared 'evidience' in support of closing those schools. In other words the Council 'proposal' wasn't good enough - why was this? Were council officials incompetent? Why was the Council unable to put forward a proposal that was accepted by the people they represent if this is such a good option? Or was something else going on - was the Council deliberately concealingdishonestly manipulating the facts in an attempt to mislead the public into accepting this flawed proposal? We do not know because we have no idea why Councillors are 'hell bent' on progressing this project. When they discussed this at a Council Meeting on 9 February they VOTED to have the public ejected from the meeting to prevent any possibility that they could hear the reasoning behind why they want a judicial review! What information do we have about how the Council will fund this review ? Are they going to employ an expensive QC ? Is the Council's own Head of Law and Administration & her team of solicitors already employed by the Council (Angus residents pay their salaries) going to represent the Council? How much will it cost us to preserve the vanity of the Councillors and Senior Council Officials who want to impose the Arbroath Schools Project on the people of Angus 'come hell or high water? There are too many unanswered questions.The way Angus Councillors and Senior Officials are behaving in connection with this issue is shocking. There has been a complete disregard by Angus Council for democracy. That, it would appear, is unimportant to the Council. It has even allowed the Director of Education to make an irrelevant and unjustified personal attack on a named member of the public who was one of the many people who had raised competent objection. He did this in a letter that he had written on behalf of the Council to the Scottish Government; the letter was published on the internet (Council's official site). I understand that some Councillors have complained to the Chief Executive about that conduct. However, the Director of Education and the Education Convenor, Councillor Nield remain committed to driving through the Angus Schools Project whatever the cost. Until the Council is prepared to conduct an investigation into why the Arbroath Schools Project has so far failed to be accepted by the people and the Scottish Government it would seem to be illogical and unfair to expect us to cough up for this judicial review. We urgently need an investigation into why the project has already failed before being forced to spend more money and prolonging the distress this proposal has caused.
Page 1 of 1
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.