'Build new primary school on site and a child could be killed'

Artist’s impression of what Avonwood Primary School could look like, subject to consultation and planning permission

Artist’s impression of what Avonwood Primary School could look like, subject to consultation and planning permission

First published in News
Last updated
by

Residents fear a child could be killed if a new primary school is built on a proposed site in Boscombe East.

They claim traffic problems in Harewood Avenue already put youngsters at risk and are worried it will get worse if the new Avonwood Primary goes ahead where planned.

Nearly 2,000 secondary school children already access Avonbourne and Harewood Colleges from one road and there are plans for a further 420 children to attend Avonwood.

Those living close to the site are also objecting due to expected noise from the proposed school, just metres from their gardens.

They have stressed they appreciate the need for a new school but one resident, Colin Feltham, said: “It could be built further down the site and would cause less problems as it will not be so close to the existing schools. All we want is that they play fair because we feel our concerns are being ignored and we are being kept in the dark about what is going to happen.”

Mr Feltham and fellow neighbours Colin Gilbey and Russ and Ali Johns are urging residents in the area to object to the plans before today’s deadline. Online objections can be made to Bournemouth council until Sunday. They have distributed letters to 250 homes which suggest an alternative location on the same site, but accessed from Petersfield Road.

The letter says: “Harewood Avenue is already extremely busy with traffic. There appears to be a much safer, more appropriate and logical location.”

Executive head teacher of Avonbourne Trust, Debbie Godfrey-Phaure, said the safety of pupils was of “paramount importance” and measures are being taken to alleviate the impact of the proposed school.

She told the Echo Avonwood Primary will open and close before the two secondary schools to help ease traffic.

She added that access to the site via Petersfield Road was ruled out due to landfill restrictions, loss of playing fields and proximity to other schools.

“People driving into the primary school will access it via Newslands Road and exit it by the former entrance to Avonbourne College. This has better visibility and the one-way circuit enables more off-road parking.”

The plans include a drop-off area and 66 parking spaces.

Comments (40)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:55am Fri 11 Jul 14

PokesdownMark says...

Primary school pupils are much more likely to be dropped off by car. An extra three or four hundred cars is going to make a huge impact. Especially at the southern end of Littledown Ave. If the council could build that new slip there onto Wessex Way that would be helpful. Otherwise I think we can expect very severe traffic problems.
Though it is a 20mph limit so the children are perfectly safe. We were promised.
Primary school pupils are much more likely to be dropped off by car. An extra three or four hundred cars is going to make a huge impact. Especially at the southern end of Littledown Ave. If the council could build that new slip there onto Wessex Way that would be helpful. Otherwise I think we can expect very severe traffic problems. Though it is a 20mph limit so the children are perfectly safe. We were promised. PokesdownMark
  • Score: 17

10:27am Fri 11 Jul 14

BarrHumbug says...

Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either?

Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.
Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either? Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse. BarrHumbug
  • Score: 48

10:37am Fri 11 Jul 14

Letcommonsenseprevail says...

Scare-mongering has sunk to an all-time low.
Scare-mongering has sunk to an all-time low. Letcommonsenseprevail
  • Score: 29

10:47am Fri 11 Jul 14

ragj195 says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either?

Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.
How often do you drive down that road at 3pm?
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either? Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.[/p][/quote]How often do you drive down that road at 3pm? ragj195
  • Score: -11

11:11am Fri 11 Jul 14

BmthNewshound says...

Whilst I understand the residents concerns this is going to one of those rare occasions when I have to sympathise with the Councils predicament. There is a need for a new primary school in the area and the Council has limited options where that school can be built due to limited land availability and the catchment area the school is to serve.
Whilst I understand the residents concerns this is going to one of those rare occasions when I have to sympathise with the Councils predicament. There is a need for a new primary school in the area and the Council has limited options where that school can be built due to limited land availability and the catchment area the school is to serve. BmthNewshound
  • Score: 19

11:38am Fri 11 Jul 14

bobthedestroyer says...

NIMBYism at its best. "Move it away from us so its further away from existing schools" (although the new school will be part of the existing campus).

Petersfield Road sees heavy school traffic as well as people use it to access St Peters School, Bicknell School (Tregonwell Academy) and to get to Avonbourne and Portchester, and just a stones throw away there is also St James School so a lot of traffic is concentrated in this area.

The designated access road is already in a speed control zone (20mph) with speed humps.

As for a child being killed, this can happen anywhere near a school not sure why this is being raised obviously the risk increases as there will be more people in a given area but the same could be said about housing development or building flats.
NIMBYism at its best. "Move it away from us so its further away from existing schools" (although the new school will be part of the existing campus). Petersfield Road sees heavy school traffic as well as people use it to access St Peters School, Bicknell School (Tregonwell Academy) and to get to Avonbourne and Portchester, and just a stones throw away there is also St James School so a lot of traffic is concentrated in this area. The designated access road is already in a speed control zone (20mph) with speed humps. As for a child being killed, this can happen anywhere near a school not sure why this is being raised obviously the risk increases as there will be more people in a given area but the same could be said about housing development or building flats. bobthedestroyer
  • Score: 15

11:54am Fri 11 Jul 14

ProudofBoscombe says...

That's a nice bit of Boscombe - yes they do exist. Don't want it mucked up now, do we?

Maybe that poster who always wants Boscombe bulldozed and rebuilt should be posting about doing the same here.
That's a nice bit of Boscombe - yes they do exist. Don't want it mucked up now, do we? Maybe that poster who always wants Boscombe bulldozed and rebuilt should be posting about doing the same here. ProudofBoscombe
  • Score: 0

12:06pm Fri 11 Jul 14

muscliffman says...

This sort of silly scaremongering does nothing helpful for the resident's case, at least be credible with the objections - which in themselves are not entirely unreasonable although likely to be labelled as NIMBY'.

It is also pleasing to note that many real people do acknowledge that traffic near to schools at crucial times is at a virtual standstill - with it's speed presenting no safety issue to children or anyone.

So why do Councillors and Town Hall Officers who keep imposing pointless and very expensive traffic calming and 20mph limits 24/7 all year near such establishments completely fail to get this?
This sort of silly scaremongering does nothing helpful for the resident's case, at least be credible with the objections - which in themselves are not entirely unreasonable although likely to be labelled as NIMBY'. It is also pleasing to note that many real people do acknowledge that traffic near to schools at crucial times is at a virtual standstill - with it's speed presenting no safety issue to children or anyone. So why do Councillors and Town Hall Officers who keep imposing pointless and very expensive traffic calming and 20mph limits 24/7 all year near such establishments completely fail to get this? muscliffman
  • Score: 9

12:07pm Fri 11 Jul 14

BarrHumbug says...

ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either?

Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.
How often do you drive down that road at 3pm?
And your point is?........
[quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either? Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.[/p][/quote]How often do you drive down that road at 3pm?[/p][/quote]And your point is?........ BarrHumbug
  • Score: 4

12:10pm Fri 11 Jul 14

MrDMan says...

The title of the story makes it seem as though the child killed would be as a sacrifice to the new school.
The title of the story makes it seem as though the child killed would be as a sacrifice to the new school. MrDMan
  • Score: 12

12:25pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Wageslave says...

Harewood Avenue , Harewood Place = Snobs
Harewood Avenue , Harewood Place = Snobs Wageslave
  • Score: -3

12:50pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Loonyspoon says...

Obviously the residents number one priority is the safety of the children. Maybe they could organise a rota to voluntarily provide a lollipop service to help them cross safely? No? Didn't think so?
Obviously the residents number one priority is the safety of the children. Maybe they could organise a rota to voluntarily provide a lollipop service to help them cross safely? No? Didn't think so? Loonyspoon
  • Score: 9

12:55pm Fri 11 Jul 14

ragj195 says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either?

Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.
How often do you drive down that road at 3pm?
And your point is?........
I'm not making a point, I'm asking you a question.
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either? Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.[/p][/quote]How often do you drive down that road at 3pm?[/p][/quote]And your point is?........[/p][/quote]I'm not making a point, I'm asking you a question. ragj195
  • Score: -4

1:00pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Charles_F says...

I think the numerous pedophile rehabilitation centres in Boscombe should be more of an issue for most parents!
I think the numerous pedophile rehabilitation centres in Boscombe should be more of an issue for most parents! Charles_F
  • Score: -3

1:24pm Fri 11 Jul 14

loftusrod says...

Where's Boscombe East?
Can't find it on any maps or signposts.
Where's Boscombe East? Can't find it on any maps or signposts. loftusrod
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Fri 11 Jul 14

PokesdownMark says...

Wageslave wrote:
Harewood Avenue , Harewood Place = Snobs
That is a very broad brush you think with.
[quote][p][bold]Wageslave[/bold] wrote: Harewood Avenue , Harewood Place = Snobs[/p][/quote]That is a very broad brush you think with. PokesdownMark
  • Score: 4

1:34pm Fri 11 Jul 14

BarrHumbug says...

ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either?

Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.
How often do you drive down that road at 3pm?
And your point is?........
I'm not making a point, I'm asking you a question.
I think you are making a point, the point being if I don't live on, or use the road regularly then who am I to comment or pass judgement? But seeing as you've asked I shall entertain you with an answer, I don't use the road, not very often. I presume you do by your question?
So tell me, how many children do you kill each day when you travel along it? Because that is my argument. I sympathise with the residents over the extra traffic and parking nightmare that schools bring to an area at 8:30 and 3pm everyday, I certainly wouldn't want it, I even understand at a stretch the noise of kids playing at lunchtime (how dare they) but to use the "a child might be killed" is a desperate and stupid argument suggesting that the blood will be on the councils hands if they go ahead with building it.
[quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either? Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.[/p][/quote]How often do you drive down that road at 3pm?[/p][/quote]And your point is?........[/p][/quote]I'm not making a point, I'm asking you a question.[/p][/quote]I think you are making a point, the point being if I don't live on, or use the road regularly then who am I to comment or pass judgement? But seeing as you've asked I shall entertain you with an answer, I don't use the road, not very often. I presume you do by your question? So tell me, how many children do you kill each day when you travel along it? Because that is my argument. I sympathise with the residents over the extra traffic and parking nightmare that schools bring to an area at 8:30 and 3pm everyday, I certainly wouldn't want it, I even understand at a stretch the noise of kids playing at lunchtime (how dare they) but to use the "a child might be killed" is a desperate and stupid argument suggesting that the blood will be on the councils hands if they go ahead with building it. BarrHumbug
  • Score: 11

1:41pm Fri 11 Jul 14

djd says...

If anything happens to a child, and God forbid that it does, it will be the fault of one of the mums or dads who insist on stopping so their child has the least distance to walk and in the most dangerous place possible.
As for a dropping of point within the school grounds and a one way system into and out of the school, I just can't see any mum or dad wanting to wait in a queue of traffic going into or out of the school.
Anyone who thinks there won't be more traffic congestion is living in cloud cuckoo land.
If anything happens to a child, and God forbid that it does, it will be the fault of one of the mums or dads who insist on stopping so their child has the least distance to walk and in the most dangerous place possible. As for a dropping of point within the school grounds and a one way system into and out of the school, I just can't see any mum or dad wanting to wait in a queue of traffic going into or out of the school. Anyone who thinks there won't be more traffic congestion is living in cloud cuckoo land. djd
  • Score: 7

2:04pm Fri 11 Jul 14

susi.m says...

People against a new school on the proposed site - where do you suggest a school should be built if not there???
I cant think of anywhere else in the surrounding area.
People against a new school on the proposed site - where do you suggest a school should be built if not there??? I cant think of anywhere else in the surrounding area. susi.m
  • Score: 2

2:14pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Fingersonthem says...

susi.m wrote:
People against a new school on the proposed site - where do you suggest a school should be built if not there???
I cant think of anywhere else in the surrounding area.
Why have large primary schools revert back to the past with small local schools thus avoiding all this travelling.

Or even use the Winter Gardens site
[quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: People against a new school on the proposed site - where do you suggest a school should be built if not there??? I cant think of anywhere else in the surrounding area.[/p][/quote]Why have large primary schools revert back to the past with small local schools thus avoiding all this travelling. Or even use the Winter Gardens site Fingersonthem
  • Score: -2

2:19pm Fri 11 Jul 14

ragj195 says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either?

Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.
How often do you drive down that road at 3pm?
And your point is?........
I'm not making a point, I'm asking you a question.
I think you are making a point, the point being if I don't live on, or use the road regularly then who am I to comment or pass judgement? But seeing as you've asked I shall entertain you with an answer, I don't use the road, not very often. I presume you do by your question?
So tell me, how many children do you kill each day when you travel along it? Because that is my argument. I sympathise with the residents over the extra traffic and parking nightmare that schools bring to an area at 8:30 and 3pm everyday, I certainly wouldn't want it, I even understand at a stretch the noise of kids playing at lunchtime (how dare they) but to use the "a child might be killed" is a desperate and stupid argument suggesting that the blood will be on the councils hands if they go ahead with building it.
Why don't people like you read the actual article before jumping on the band wagon. The headline, written by the Echo is the only place where anything states a "child may be killed". Yet it doesn't stop you having a pop at residents, one of whom has clearly pointed out that it's the noise they object to.

So, they are being honest in their objections but the Echo aren't being honest in their reporting.
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either? Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.[/p][/quote]How often do you drive down that road at 3pm?[/p][/quote]And your point is?........[/p][/quote]I'm not making a point, I'm asking you a question.[/p][/quote]I think you are making a point, the point being if I don't live on, or use the road regularly then who am I to comment or pass judgement? But seeing as you've asked I shall entertain you with an answer, I don't use the road, not very often. I presume you do by your question? So tell me, how many children do you kill each day when you travel along it? Because that is my argument. I sympathise with the residents over the extra traffic and parking nightmare that schools bring to an area at 8:30 and 3pm everyday, I certainly wouldn't want it, I even understand at a stretch the noise of kids playing at lunchtime (how dare they) but to use the "a child might be killed" is a desperate and stupid argument suggesting that the blood will be on the councils hands if they go ahead with building it.[/p][/quote]Why don't people like you read the actual article before jumping on the band wagon. The headline, written by the Echo is the only place where anything states a "child may be killed". Yet it doesn't stop you having a pop at residents, one of whom has clearly pointed out that it's the noise they object to. So, they are being honest in their objections but the Echo aren't being honest in their reporting. ragj195
  • Score: -2

3:13pm Fri 11 Jul 14

BarrHumbug says...

ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either?

Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.
How often do you drive down that road at 3pm?
And your point is?........
I'm not making a point, I'm asking you a question.
I think you are making a point, the point being if I don't live on, or use the road regularly then who am I to comment or pass judgement? But seeing as you've asked I shall entertain you with an answer, I don't use the road, not very often. I presume you do by your question?
So tell me, how many children do you kill each day when you travel along it? Because that is my argument. I sympathise with the residents over the extra traffic and parking nightmare that schools bring to an area at 8:30 and 3pm everyday, I certainly wouldn't want it, I even understand at a stretch the noise of kids playing at lunchtime (how dare they) but to use the "a child might be killed" is a desperate and stupid argument suggesting that the blood will be on the councils hands if they go ahead with building it.
Why don't people like you read the actual article before jumping on the band wagon. The headline, written by the Echo is the only place where anything states a "child may be killed". Yet it doesn't stop you having a pop at residents, one of whom has clearly pointed out that it's the noise they object to.

So, they are being honest in their objections but the Echo aren't being honest in their reporting.
Excuse me, "people like you" have you read the first paragraph? It says residents fear a child could be killed, have you been around to every resident to find out if they have been misquoted to back up your claims of dishonest reporting?

As I have said twice now (do you read the comments?) I sympathise with the concerns of traffic, parking and noise, what i objected to was..........Oh I can't be bothered, just go back and read my comments properly before jumping on the band wagon and having a pop!
[quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either? Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.[/p][/quote]How often do you drive down that road at 3pm?[/p][/quote]And your point is?........[/p][/quote]I'm not making a point, I'm asking you a question.[/p][/quote]I think you are making a point, the point being if I don't live on, or use the road regularly then who am I to comment or pass judgement? But seeing as you've asked I shall entertain you with an answer, I don't use the road, not very often. I presume you do by your question? So tell me, how many children do you kill each day when you travel along it? Because that is my argument. I sympathise with the residents over the extra traffic and parking nightmare that schools bring to an area at 8:30 and 3pm everyday, I certainly wouldn't want it, I even understand at a stretch the noise of kids playing at lunchtime (how dare they) but to use the "a child might be killed" is a desperate and stupid argument suggesting that the blood will be on the councils hands if they go ahead with building it.[/p][/quote]Why don't people like you read the actual article before jumping on the band wagon. The headline, written by the Echo is the only place where anything states a "child may be killed". Yet it doesn't stop you having a pop at residents, one of whom has clearly pointed out that it's the noise they object to. So, they are being honest in their objections but the Echo aren't being honest in their reporting.[/p][/quote]Excuse me, "people like you" have you read the first paragraph? It says residents fear a child could be killed, have you been around to every resident to find out if they have been misquoted to back up your claims of dishonest reporting? As I have said twice now (do you read the comments?) I sympathise with the concerns of traffic, parking and noise, what i objected to was..........Oh I can't be bothered, just go back and read my comments properly before jumping on the band wagon and having a pop! BarrHumbug
  • Score: 4

3:15pm Fri 11 Jul 14

beachcomber1 says...

susi.m wrote:
People against a new school on the proposed site - where do you suggest a school should be built if not there???
I cant think of anywhere else in the surrounding area.
maybe build some HMO's out there and convert some of the HMO's by the Crescent into a Primary school? the resident's reaction to that would be entertaining.
[quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: People against a new school on the proposed site - where do you suggest a school should be built if not there??? I cant think of anywhere else in the surrounding area.[/p][/quote]maybe build some HMO's out there and convert some of the HMO's by the Crescent into a Primary school? the resident's reaction to that would be entertaining. beachcomber1
  • Score: 5

3:29pm Fri 11 Jul 14

ragj195 says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either?

Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.
How often do you drive down that road at 3pm?
And your point is?........
I'm not making a point, I'm asking you a question.
I think you are making a point, the point being if I don't live on, or use the road regularly then who am I to comment or pass judgement? But seeing as you've asked I shall entertain you with an answer, I don't use the road, not very often. I presume you do by your question?
So tell me, how many children do you kill each day when you travel along it? Because that is my argument. I sympathise with the residents over the extra traffic and parking nightmare that schools bring to an area at 8:30 and 3pm everyday, I certainly wouldn't want it, I even understand at a stretch the noise of kids playing at lunchtime (how dare they) but to use the "a child might be killed" is a desperate and stupid argument suggesting that the blood will be on the councils hands if they go ahead with building it.
Why don't people like you read the actual article before jumping on the band wagon. The headline, written by the Echo is the only place where anything states a "child may be killed". Yet it doesn't stop you having a pop at residents, one of whom has clearly pointed out that it's the noise they object to.

So, they are being honest in their objections but the Echo aren't being honest in their reporting.
Excuse me, "people like you" have you read the first paragraph? It says residents fear a child could be killed, have you been around to every resident to find out if they have been misquoted to back up your claims of dishonest reporting?

As I have said twice now (do you read the comments?) I sympathise with the concerns of traffic, parking and noise, what i objected to was..........Oh I can't be bothered, just go back and read my comments properly before jumping on the band wagon and having a pop!
It does say "residents fear a child could be killed" but they then provide no quote to back this up. Yet you expect me to prove that they have been "misquoted". Strange logic to that.

To quote you

"Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise"

To quote Colin
“It could be built further down the site and would cause less problems as it will not be so close to the existing schools. All we want is that they play fair because we feel our concerns are being ignored and we are being kept in the dark about what is going to happen.”

Seems pretty honest to me. This is one guy giving his opinion but apparently despite no mention of it he thinks a child will be killed. Keep it up. After all, we all know the Echo reporters are top investigative journalists rather than admin staff posting rubbish on a website to keep up the advertising revenue.
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either? Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.[/p][/quote]How often do you drive down that road at 3pm?[/p][/quote]And your point is?........[/p][/quote]I'm not making a point, I'm asking you a question.[/p][/quote]I think you are making a point, the point being if I don't live on, or use the road regularly then who am I to comment or pass judgement? But seeing as you've asked I shall entertain you with an answer, I don't use the road, not very often. I presume you do by your question? So tell me, how many children do you kill each day when you travel along it? Because that is my argument. I sympathise with the residents over the extra traffic and parking nightmare that schools bring to an area at 8:30 and 3pm everyday, I certainly wouldn't want it, I even understand at a stretch the noise of kids playing at lunchtime (how dare they) but to use the "a child might be killed" is a desperate and stupid argument suggesting that the blood will be on the councils hands if they go ahead with building it.[/p][/quote]Why don't people like you read the actual article before jumping on the band wagon. The headline, written by the Echo is the only place where anything states a "child may be killed". Yet it doesn't stop you having a pop at residents, one of whom has clearly pointed out that it's the noise they object to. So, they are being honest in their objections but the Echo aren't being honest in their reporting.[/p][/quote]Excuse me, "people like you" have you read the first paragraph? It says residents fear a child could be killed, have you been around to every resident to find out if they have been misquoted to back up your claims of dishonest reporting? As I have said twice now (do you read the comments?) I sympathise with the concerns of traffic, parking and noise, what i objected to was..........Oh I can't be bothered, just go back and read my comments properly before jumping on the band wagon and having a pop![/p][/quote]It does say "residents fear a child could be killed" but they then provide no quote to back this up. Yet you expect me to prove that they have been "misquoted". Strange logic to that. To quote you "Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise" To quote Colin “It could be built further down the site and would cause less problems as it will not be so close to the existing schools. All we want is that they play fair because we feel our concerns are being ignored and we are being kept in the dark about what is going to happen.” Seems pretty honest to me. This is one guy giving his opinion but apparently despite no mention of it he thinks a child will be killed. Keep it up. After all, we all know the Echo reporters are top investigative journalists rather than admin staff posting rubbish on a website to keep up the advertising revenue. ragj195
  • Score: -4

4:12pm Fri 11 Jul 14

BarrHumbug says...

ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either?

Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.
How often do you drive down that road at 3pm?
And your point is?........
I'm not making a point, I'm asking you a question.
I think you are making a point, the point being if I don't live on, or use the road regularly then who am I to comment or pass judgement? But seeing as you've asked I shall entertain you with an answer, I don't use the road, not very often. I presume you do by your question?
So tell me, how many children do you kill each day when you travel along it? Because that is my argument. I sympathise with the residents over the extra traffic and parking nightmare that schools bring to an area at 8:30 and 3pm everyday, I certainly wouldn't want it, I even understand at a stretch the noise of kids playing at lunchtime (how dare they) but to use the "a child might be killed" is a desperate and stupid argument suggesting that the blood will be on the councils hands if they go ahead with building it.
Why don't people like you read the actual article before jumping on the band wagon. The headline, written by the Echo is the only place where anything states a "child may be killed". Yet it doesn't stop you having a pop at residents, one of whom has clearly pointed out that it's the noise they object to.

So, they are being honest in their objections but the Echo aren't being honest in their reporting.
Excuse me, "people like you" have you read the first paragraph? It says residents fear a child could be killed, have you been around to every resident to find out if they have been misquoted to back up your claims of dishonest reporting?

As I have said twice now (do you read the comments?) I sympathise with the concerns of traffic, parking and noise, what i objected to was..........Oh I can't be bothered, just go back and read my comments properly before jumping on the band wagon and having a pop!
It does say "residents fear a child could be killed" but they then provide no quote to back this up. Yet you expect me to prove that they have been "misquoted". Strange logic to that.

To quote you

"Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise"

To quote Colin
“It could be built further down the site and would cause less problems as it will not be so close to the existing schools. All we want is that they play fair because we feel our concerns are being ignored and we are being kept in the dark about what is going to happen.”

Seems pretty honest to me. This is one guy giving his opinion but apparently despite no mention of it he thinks a child will be killed. Keep it up. After all, we all know the Echo reporters are top investigative journalists rather than admin staff posting rubbish on a website to keep up the advertising revenue.
Why don't you take up the factual inaccuracies with the Echo then and not me, and if you don't want to do that then simply don't read it.

Obviously because they have not quoted the names of those who said a child could be killed and they just wrote residents then they must be lying, in which case why don't you take it up with the press complaints commission if you feel so strongly about it?
[quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either? Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.[/p][/quote]How often do you drive down that road at 3pm?[/p][/quote]And your point is?........[/p][/quote]I'm not making a point, I'm asking you a question.[/p][/quote]I think you are making a point, the point being if I don't live on, or use the road regularly then who am I to comment or pass judgement? But seeing as you've asked I shall entertain you with an answer, I don't use the road, not very often. I presume you do by your question? So tell me, how many children do you kill each day when you travel along it? Because that is my argument. I sympathise with the residents over the extra traffic and parking nightmare that schools bring to an area at 8:30 and 3pm everyday, I certainly wouldn't want it, I even understand at a stretch the noise of kids playing at lunchtime (how dare they) but to use the "a child might be killed" is a desperate and stupid argument suggesting that the blood will be on the councils hands if they go ahead with building it.[/p][/quote]Why don't people like you read the actual article before jumping on the band wagon. The headline, written by the Echo is the only place where anything states a "child may be killed". Yet it doesn't stop you having a pop at residents, one of whom has clearly pointed out that it's the noise they object to. So, they are being honest in their objections but the Echo aren't being honest in their reporting.[/p][/quote]Excuse me, "people like you" have you read the first paragraph? It says residents fear a child could be killed, have you been around to every resident to find out if they have been misquoted to back up your claims of dishonest reporting? As I have said twice now (do you read the comments?) I sympathise with the concerns of traffic, parking and noise, what i objected to was..........Oh I can't be bothered, just go back and read my comments properly before jumping on the band wagon and having a pop![/p][/quote]It does say "residents fear a child could be killed" but they then provide no quote to back this up. Yet you expect me to prove that they have been "misquoted". Strange logic to that. To quote you "Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise" To quote Colin “It could be built further down the site and would cause less problems as it will not be so close to the existing schools. All we want is that they play fair because we feel our concerns are being ignored and we are being kept in the dark about what is going to happen.” Seems pretty honest to me. This is one guy giving his opinion but apparently despite no mention of it he thinks a child will be killed. Keep it up. After all, we all know the Echo reporters are top investigative journalists rather than admin staff posting rubbish on a website to keep up the advertising revenue.[/p][/quote]Why don't you take up the factual inaccuracies with the Echo then and not me, and if you don't want to do that then simply don't read it. Obviously because they have not quoted the names of those who said a child could be killed and they just wrote residents then they must be lying, in which case why don't you take it up with the press complaints commission if you feel so strongly about it? BarrHumbug
  • Score: 6

4:21pm Fri 11 Jul 14

ragj195 says...

BarrHumbug wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
ragj195 wrote:
BarrHumbug wrote:
Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either?

Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.
How often do you drive down that road at 3pm?
And your point is?........
I'm not making a point, I'm asking you a question.
I think you are making a point, the point being if I don't live on, or use the road regularly then who am I to comment or pass judgement? But seeing as you've asked I shall entertain you with an answer, I don't use the road, not very often. I presume you do by your question?
So tell me, how many children do you kill each day when you travel along it? Because that is my argument. I sympathise with the residents over the extra traffic and parking nightmare that schools bring to an area at 8:30 and 3pm everyday, I certainly wouldn't want it, I even understand at a stretch the noise of kids playing at lunchtime (how dare they) but to use the "a child might be killed" is a desperate and stupid argument suggesting that the blood will be on the councils hands if they go ahead with building it.
Why don't people like you read the actual article before jumping on the band wagon. The headline, written by the Echo is the only place where anything states a "child may be killed". Yet it doesn't stop you having a pop at residents, one of whom has clearly pointed out that it's the noise they object to.

So, they are being honest in their objections but the Echo aren't being honest in their reporting.
Excuse me, "people like you" have you read the first paragraph? It says residents fear a child could be killed, have you been around to every resident to find out if they have been misquoted to back up your claims of dishonest reporting?

As I have said twice now (do you read the comments?) I sympathise with the concerns of traffic, parking and noise, what i objected to was..........Oh I can't be bothered, just go back and read my comments properly before jumping on the band wagon and having a pop!
It does say "residents fear a child could be killed" but they then provide no quote to back this up. Yet you expect me to prove that they have been "misquoted". Strange logic to that.

To quote you

"Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise"

To quote Colin
“It could be built further down the site and would cause less problems as it will not be so close to the existing schools. All we want is that they play fair because we feel our concerns are being ignored and we are being kept in the dark about what is going to happen.”

Seems pretty honest to me. This is one guy giving his opinion but apparently despite no mention of it he thinks a child will be killed. Keep it up. After all, we all know the Echo reporters are top investigative journalists rather than admin staff posting rubbish on a website to keep up the advertising revenue.
Why don't you take up the factual inaccuracies with the Echo then and not me, and if you don't want to do that then simply don't read it.

Obviously because they have not quoted the names of those who said a child could be killed and they just wrote residents then they must be lying, in which case why don't you take it up with the press complaints commission if you feel so strongly about it?
So you think your first comment is fair based on the QUOTES from Colin? I don't feel strongly about the article. It's a load of rubbish written to entice people like you into writing comments just like the one you posted. They put the words "child and kill" in the headline and they know most people won't bother reading the actual quotes they have recorded. You're just proof of that.
[quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ragj195[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]BarrHumbug[/bold] wrote: Are these by and chance the same people who don't want the wind farm either? Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise a school would create and the traffic and parking problems when parents are dropping off and picking up their kids, thats perfectly understandable, but claiming that a child could be killed is just emotional blackmail and a pretty poor excuse.[/p][/quote]How often do you drive down that road at 3pm?[/p][/quote]And your point is?........[/p][/quote]I'm not making a point, I'm asking you a question.[/p][/quote]I think you are making a point, the point being if I don't live on, or use the road regularly then who am I to comment or pass judgement? But seeing as you've asked I shall entertain you with an answer, I don't use the road, not very often. I presume you do by your question? So tell me, how many children do you kill each day when you travel along it? Because that is my argument. I sympathise with the residents over the extra traffic and parking nightmare that schools bring to an area at 8:30 and 3pm everyday, I certainly wouldn't want it, I even understand at a stretch the noise of kids playing at lunchtime (how dare they) but to use the "a child might be killed" is a desperate and stupid argument suggesting that the blood will be on the councils hands if they go ahead with building it.[/p][/quote]Why don't people like you read the actual article before jumping on the band wagon. The headline, written by the Echo is the only place where anything states a "child may be killed". Yet it doesn't stop you having a pop at residents, one of whom has clearly pointed out that it's the noise they object to. So, they are being honest in their objections but the Echo aren't being honest in their reporting.[/p][/quote]Excuse me, "people like you" have you read the first paragraph? It says residents fear a child could be killed, have you been around to every resident to find out if they have been misquoted to back up your claims of dishonest reporting? As I have said twice now (do you read the comments?) I sympathise with the concerns of traffic, parking and noise, what i objected to was..........Oh I can't be bothered, just go back and read my comments properly before jumping on the band wagon and having a pop![/p][/quote]It does say "residents fear a child could be killed" but they then provide no quote to back this up. Yet you expect me to prove that they have been "misquoted". Strange logic to that. To quote you "Why can't they be honest about their objections? You don't want it because of the extra noise" To quote Colin “It could be built further down the site and would cause less problems as it will not be so close to the existing schools. All we want is that they play fair because we feel our concerns are being ignored and we are being kept in the dark about what is going to happen.” Seems pretty honest to me. This is one guy giving his opinion but apparently despite no mention of it he thinks a child will be killed. Keep it up. After all, we all know the Echo reporters are top investigative journalists rather than admin staff posting rubbish on a website to keep up the advertising revenue.[/p][/quote]Why don't you take up the factual inaccuracies with the Echo then and not me, and if you don't want to do that then simply don't read it. Obviously because they have not quoted the names of those who said a child could be killed and they just wrote residents then they must be lying, in which case why don't you take it up with the press complaints commission if you feel so strongly about it?[/p][/quote]So you think your first comment is fair based on the QUOTES from Colin? I don't feel strongly about the article. It's a load of rubbish written to entice people like you into writing comments just like the one you posted. They put the words "child and kill" in the headline and they know most people won't bother reading the actual quotes they have recorded. You're just proof of that. ragj195
  • Score: -1

4:22pm Fri 11 Jul 14

BarrHumbug says...

Also ragj195 do you work for a paper?
I just ask because your very good at partially quoting me to qualify your argument whilst conveniently missing out the rest of the quote?
Also ragj195 do you work for a paper? I just ask because your very good at partially quoting me to qualify your argument whilst conveniently missing out the rest of the quote? BarrHumbug
  • Score: 2

4:29pm Fri 11 Jul 14

M0Z says...

Silly headline. When I was about six I ran into the road outside school straight into a moving car. No real problem - we bounce at that age. OK, my head needed bandages and the scars lasted a few decades, but it taught me a good lesson - and that's what schools are all about.
Silly headline. When I was about six I ran into the road outside school straight into a moving car. No real problem - we bounce at that age. OK, my head needed bandages and the scars lasted a few decades, but it taught me a good lesson - and that's what schools are all about. M0Z
  • Score: 3

5:39pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Miss_Lizzie says...

What a ridiculous headline, a child could be killed now but not because there is a school. They could be killed because the good people of Bournemouth are so dependant on their cars for short journeys that they clog the roads. This road has a 20mph restriction and is a clear way so it is in fact a very safe road. I cycle along the Kings Park to Littledown valley route every day and since this has improved there are hundreds of children walking to school. So I would suggest that with older children around the whole area is ideal to let even younger children walk to school.
Then there would be no cars to kill the children.
The problem is the cars not the schools or the children.

Placing new primary schools on secondary school sites might prove to be good planning as the current increase in requirement for primary school places may turn into a requirement for secondary schools places if this is just a boom period for babies. It is difficult to predict future demographics with such a mobile population which includes Europe.
Having primary, secondary and sixth form on one site seems like an excellent idea.

I think what you don't want is another school in your back garden, well don't move next to a school and then complain it's a school. Every evening & weekend and all summer you have a quiet space where most people have back to back gardens.

FINALLY what you have omitted is that this school is starting with reception and growing each year so it is not a sudden influx of extra children but gradual growth. I doubt you will notice it particularly as the school start times are staggered.
What a ridiculous headline, a child could be killed now but not because there is a school. They could be killed because the good people of Bournemouth are so dependant on their cars for short journeys that they clog the roads. This road has a 20mph restriction and is a clear way so it is in fact a very safe road. I cycle along the Kings Park to Littledown valley route every day and since this has improved there are hundreds of children walking to school. So I would suggest that with older children around the whole area is ideal to let even younger children walk to school. Then there would be no cars to kill the children. The problem is the cars not the schools or the children. Placing new primary schools on secondary school sites might prove to be good planning as the current increase in requirement for primary school places may turn into a requirement for secondary schools places if this is just a boom period for babies. It is difficult to predict future demographics with such a mobile population which includes Europe. Having primary, secondary and sixth form on one site seems like an excellent idea. I think what you don't want is another school in your back garden, well don't move next to a school and then complain it's a school. Every evening & weekend and all summer you have a quiet space where most people have back to back gardens. FINALLY what you have omitted is that this school is starting with reception and growing each year so it is not a sudden influx of extra children but gradual growth. I doubt you will notice it particularly as the school start times are staggered. Miss_Lizzie
  • Score: 6

5:43pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Miss_Lizzie says...

PokesdownMark wrote:
Primary school pupils are much more likely to be dropped off by car. An extra three or four hundred cars is going to make a huge impact. Especially at the southern end of Littledown Ave. If the council could build that new slip there onto Wessex Way that would be helpful. Otherwise I think we can expect very severe traffic problems.
Though it is a 20mph limit so the children are perfectly safe. We were promised.
I agree the on slip would do much to relieve congestion in this area, the council have time to get that in place before this school becomes a full primary. I understand it is opening (like all the new schools) with reception and increasing each year so the initial impact will be minimal.
[quote][p][bold]PokesdownMark[/bold] wrote: Primary school pupils are much more likely to be dropped off by car. An extra three or four hundred cars is going to make a huge impact. Especially at the southern end of Littledown Ave. If the council could build that new slip there onto Wessex Way that would be helpful. Otherwise I think we can expect very severe traffic problems. Though it is a 20mph limit so the children are perfectly safe. We were promised.[/p][/quote]I agree the on slip would do much to relieve congestion in this area, the council have time to get that in place before this school becomes a full primary. I understand it is opening (like all the new schools) with reception and increasing each year so the initial impact will be minimal. Miss_Lizzie
  • Score: 4

5:43pm Fri 11 Jul 14

Bournefre says...

M0Z wrote:
Silly headline. When I was about six I ran into the road outside school straight into a moving car. No real problem - we bounce at that age. OK, my head needed bandages and the scars lasted a few decades, but it taught me a good lesson - and that's what schools are all about.
Children don't run out into the middle of the road any more (if they ever did), especially when they're being escorted from the school to the car, usually with a parent holding their hand.
Children know if they try to run out into the road they'll get told off in front of all their classmates, by the parents who want to show off their parenting to the other parents.

Nowadays during the school day the children are kept inside the school by perimeter fencing, then outside the school there's usually a barrier to stop them running out, yellow zigzags to improve visibility, signs to warn motorists to look out for children crossing, a reduced speed limit, traffic calming and often a crossing, sometimes with a crossing patrol.
In this particular case it seems the school would have dedicated vehicular access as well, yet some people still seem to think there is more chance of a child getting run over and killed outside a school than anywhere else, such as walking to the shops or playing outside their house.
[quote][p][bold]M0Z[/bold] wrote: Silly headline. When I was about six I ran into the road outside school straight into a moving car. No real problem - we bounce at that age. OK, my head needed bandages and the scars lasted a few decades, but it taught me a good lesson - and that's what schools are all about.[/p][/quote]Children don't run out into the middle of the road any more (if they ever did), especially when they're being escorted from the school to the car, usually with a parent holding their hand. Children know if they try to run out into the road they'll get told off in front of all their classmates, by the parents who want to show off their parenting to the other parents. Nowadays during the school day the children are kept inside the school by perimeter fencing, then outside the school there's usually a barrier to stop them running out, yellow zigzags to improve visibility, signs to warn motorists to look out for children crossing, a reduced speed limit, traffic calming and often a crossing, sometimes with a crossing patrol. In this particular case it seems the school would have dedicated vehicular access as well, yet some people still seem to think there is more chance of a child getting run over and killed outside a school than anywhere else, such as walking to the shops or playing outside their house. Bournefre
  • Score: 1

6:41pm Fri 11 Jul 14

stevobath says...

All these MIMBY's.

Bet they wouldn't mind if it was built near an overcrowded Council Estate?

People need to make their minds up. Suffer lack of amenities etc. or accept that things will have to be built close by.

Wonder how many that oppose are retired or without young kids etc?

Certain generations have had the best of prosperity & seem to think they're entitled to live their lives without sacrificing anything.

Guess what? It's not like the 60's anymore. People don't get free uni education & choices of jobs etc. Those approaching retirement Baby Boom generation were exceedingly lucky in so many ways.
All these MIMBY's. Bet they wouldn't mind if it was built near an overcrowded Council Estate? People need to make their minds up. Suffer lack of amenities etc. or accept that things will have to be built close by. Wonder how many that oppose are retired or without young kids etc? Certain generations have had the best of prosperity & seem to think they're entitled to live their lives without sacrificing anything. Guess what? It's not like the 60's anymore. People don't get free uni education & choices of jobs etc. Those approaching retirement Baby Boom generation were exceedingly lucky in so many ways. stevobath
  • Score: 7

7:30pm Fri 11 Jul 14

tonythebolt says...

These spy cameras were introduced to increase the safety of the children and the respect of drivers for the law around schools, so why aren't they?
In America speed limits are halved and fines are doubled in schools areas.
This massively reduces the risks that children and parents faces when crossing roads. Maybe the law lords should start thinking about our children's safety and future and come down harder on careless drivers.
These spy cameras were introduced to increase the safety of the children and the respect of drivers for the law around schools, so why aren't they? In America speed limits are halved and fines are doubled in schools areas. This massively reduces the risks that children and parents faces when crossing roads. Maybe the law lords should start thinking about our children's safety and future and come down harder on careless drivers. tonythebolt
  • Score: 3

11:35pm Fri 11 Jul 14

sprintervanman says...

slow down then.Not rocket Science is it really UK.
slow down then.Not rocket Science is it really UK. sprintervanman
  • Score: 2

1:22am Sat 12 Jul 14

wadjit says...

ProudofBoscombe wrote:
That's a nice bit of Boscombe - yes they do exist. Don't want it mucked up now, do we?

Maybe that poster who always wants Boscombe bulldozed and rebuilt should be posting about doing the same here.
This area is Little Down. I still call it Boscombe east but it doesn't exist. I Lived on Harewood Ave for 20 years. My parents still do. A new primary school is a great ideas as far as we are concerned.
[quote][p][bold]ProudofBoscombe[/bold] wrote: That's a nice bit of Boscombe - yes they do exist. Don't want it mucked up now, do we? Maybe that poster who always wants Boscombe bulldozed and rebuilt should be posting about doing the same here.[/p][/quote]This area is Little Down. I still call it Boscombe east but it doesn't exist. I Lived on Harewood Ave for 20 years. My parents still do. A new primary school is a great ideas as far as we are concerned. wadjit
  • Score: 3

1:25am Sat 12 Jul 14

wadjit says...

Oh yes and we do not think a child could be killed. What a completely ridiculous thing to say, write or report. Well done to the echo for another steaming pile of garbage of an article.
Oh yes and we do not think a child could be killed. What a completely ridiculous thing to say, write or report. Well done to the echo for another steaming pile of garbage of an article. wadjit
  • Score: 2

4:30am Sat 12 Jul 14

twynhamob says...

susi.m wrote:
People against a new school on the proposed site - where do you suggest a school should be built if not there???
I cant think of anywhere else in the surrounding area.
I agree.... so what I think is that the houses close to the proposed school should be subject to a "compulsory purchase order" demolished and the space created would allow for better placement of the drop-off point and move the nimbies out to the countryside where they can complain about the birds tweeting and the cows mooing.
[quote][p][bold]susi.m[/bold] wrote: People against a new school on the proposed site - where do you suggest a school should be built if not there??? I cant think of anywhere else in the surrounding area.[/p][/quote]I agree.... so what I think is that the houses close to the proposed school should be subject to a "compulsory purchase order" demolished and the space created would allow for better placement of the drop-off point and move the nimbies out to the countryside where they can complain about the birds tweeting and the cows mooing. twynhamob
  • Score: 2

7:20am Sat 12 Jul 14

Chris@Bmouth says...

Wageslave wrote:
Harewood Avenue , Harewood Place = Snobs
You sound jealous?
[quote][p][bold]Wageslave[/bold] wrote: Harewood Avenue , Harewood Place = Snobs[/p][/quote]You sound jealous? Chris@Bmouth
  • Score: 0

10:35am Sat 12 Jul 14

stevobath says...

Bournefre wrote:
M0Z wrote:
Silly headline. When I was about six I ran into the road outside school straight into a moving car. No real problem - we bounce at that age. OK, my head needed bandages and the scars lasted a few decades, but it taught me a good lesson - and that's what schools are all about.
Children don't run out into the middle of the road any more (if they ever did), especially when they're being escorted from the school to the car, usually with a parent holding their hand.
Children know if they try to run out into the road they'll get told off in front of all their classmates, by the parents who want to show off their parenting to the other parents.

Nowadays during the school day the children are kept inside the school by perimeter fencing, then outside the school there's usually a barrier to stop them running out, yellow zigzags to improve visibility, signs to warn motorists to look out for children crossing, a reduced speed limit, traffic calming and often a crossing, sometimes with a crossing patrol.
In this particular case it seems the school would have dedicated vehicular access as well, yet some people still seem to think there is more chance of a child getting run over and killed outside a school than anywhere else, such as walking to the shops or playing outside their house.
As you pointed out, children are LESS likely to be in involved in an accident outside a school than anywhere else.

Talk about an hysterical & false reaction by certain people
[quote][p][bold]Bournefre[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]M0Z[/bold] wrote: Silly headline. When I was about six I ran into the road outside school straight into a moving car. No real problem - we bounce at that age. OK, my head needed bandages and the scars lasted a few decades, but it taught me a good lesson - and that's what schools are all about.[/p][/quote]Children don't run out into the middle of the road any more (if they ever did), especially when they're being escorted from the school to the car, usually with a parent holding their hand. Children know if they try to run out into the road they'll get told off in front of all their classmates, by the parents who want to show off their parenting to the other parents. Nowadays during the school day the children are kept inside the school by perimeter fencing, then outside the school there's usually a barrier to stop them running out, yellow zigzags to improve visibility, signs to warn motorists to look out for children crossing, a reduced speed limit, traffic calming and often a crossing, sometimes with a crossing patrol. In this particular case it seems the school would have dedicated vehicular access as well, yet some people still seem to think there is more chance of a child getting run over and killed outside a school than anywhere else, such as walking to the shops or playing outside their house.[/p][/quote]As you pointed out, children are LESS likely to be in involved in an accident outside a school than anywhere else. Talk about an hysterical & false reaction by certain people stevobath
  • Score: 3

11:16am Sat 19 Jul 14

hounstout says...

I'm wondering; just how much noise can a few little kids make during a handful of outside activity times per day?

The schools are closed for around 12 weeks of the year + weekends, 6 weeks of which are during the summer, so peace and quiet during the sunshine months spent in the garden.

Why buy a house near a well established school in the first place, surely these people are idiots (one is actually an ex-head teacher what a moaning twit) ? Me I love it here, apart from the throng of the diggers and dumpers that is :) The speed humps do not slow the 4x4's down, and parents parking on the yellow zig-zag lines are the only things that I can think of that's worth moaning about.
I'm wondering; just how much noise can a few little kids make during a handful of outside activity times per day? The schools are closed for around 12 weeks of the year + weekends, 6 weeks of which are during the summer, so peace and quiet during the sunshine months spent in the garden. Why buy a house near a well established school in the first place, surely these people are idiots (one is actually an ex-head teacher what a moaning twit) ? Me I love it here, apart from the throng of the diggers and dumpers that is :) The speed humps do not slow the 4x4's down, and parents parking on the yellow zig-zag lines are the only things that I can think of that's worth moaning about. hounstout
  • Score: 1

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree