When news happens: get in touch with our newsdesk on 01202 411293, 411294, 411297, Send your pictures to newsdesk@bournemouthecho.co.uk or text us, send videos, pictures and audio from your mobile. Start your message with BOURNEMOUTH ECHO leave a space and then send your message to 80360
SOMEBODY'S WATCHING YOU: Jenny Paton talks to the Daily Echo about her family being put under surveillance
Picture: Corin Messer
THE spied-upon mother at the centre of a growing media storm, after revealing she had been stalked by Poole council, has spoken of her ordeal.
Following the Daily Echo's exclusive story on Thursday, a media scrum descended on Jenny Paton, and her story has made newspaper headlines nationally and been featured on BBC, Sky and local TV news.
She and partner Tim Joyce and their three children were put under surveillance for almost three weeks by Poole council, using powers under an act intended to help catch terrorists and criminals.
Its justification was to check if they lived in the correct catchment area for their youngest daughter to attend Lilliput First School.
Jenny, 39, who runs a children's toys business, told of her abhorrence at their actions, and her shock at the council's declaration it will continue to spy on families like hers.
"THAT they will carry on spying is absolutely chilling."
advertisement
That is the verdict of a mum-of-three who found her family at the sharp end of the council's powers to monitor residents.
Jenny Paton, her partner Tim Joyce and their three children were put under surveillance for almost three weeks by Poole council, using powers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA).
They were watched day and night by a council officer, noting their exact movements as part of an investigation to check they lived in the catchment area of Lilliput First School.
Jenny, 39, who runs a children's toys business, jammyjoes.co.uk, was unaware she was being spied on until a schools admission meeting in March. She said: "When they dropped the surveillance bombshell I felt it was some kind of horrible joke, but they had records of our activities and movements.
"I was horrified. My children were named as targets for surveillance. They literally followed us.
"I haven't read it all - it made me very uncomfortable. They were tailing us, following us on school trips, coming back at 2pm to do the school pick up and following us at that time as well. They came back in the evening and parked outside both houses to see if there were any lights on and if the curtains were closed."
She added: "I do look out the window and see someone parked outside and think: Is that surveillance still going on? It's extremely creepy. It unsettles you.
"I feel we have been criminalised. I don't feel this is an appropriate piece of legislation to use. I certainly don't feel children should be targets for surveillance - that disturbs me. Other means could have been used other than terrorism legislation."
When the Daily Echo first began delving into RIPA powers, the council only admitted it had carried out procedures under the act three times for tracing telephone billing and subscription information.
Now Poole council has come out fighting, defending its use of surveillance as "appropriate and reasonable action" for the benefit of town residents.
"I think the fact that they will carry on spying is absolutely chilling," said Jenny. "They are only coming out with that attitude now because they have been caught out. They could have and should have been up front about it a few days ago."
She added: "It's a heavy handed, blunt response to the fact they have been stalking people. It does smack of Big Brother, and the fact that they are going to be doing more should ring alarm bells with everybody. It won't just be this council - other councils will be using RIPA disproportionately in this way."
The family has had a home on Sandbanks Road, within the Lilliput First School catchment area, for a decade. They also have a home in Branksome, which they are renovating.
They put their Lower Parkstone home on the market, but made sure they lived there until the end of the admissions period, to ensure their youngest daughter could follow her siblings into their school of choice.
Jenny admits to "playing the system" to their advantage, but said she did no more than any other parent would have given the circumstances.
"Catchment is a very emotive issue," she said. "We all do the best for our children, if it's going to church on Sunday to get a letter from the vicar, or buying a house in the catchment area, or renting a place for six months in the catchment period.
"To some it may seem a little underhand, a little unfair, but it is perfectly within the rules and regulations of the system as it stands at the moment."
The mum-of-three said she was prepared to face the music at the school gates over her actions, in order to highlight those of the council.
"This is a serious piece of legislation being used for schools admissions and not much else," she added. "It was my intention to ensure as many people as possible knew about RIPA's disproportionate use."
Jenny's partner Tim Joyce, 37, also spoke out to condemn the surveillance. He said: "Intrusive powers like that make people frightened to speak out - you lose a key democratic element of our society. That is not a world I want to live in."
Posted by: Rose, Bournemouth on 7:41am Sat 12 Apr 08
This seems like using a sledge hammer to crack a nut! A total misuse of resources - Bournemouth has it right in using surveillance for benefit fraud etc.
This seems like using a sledge hammer to crack a nut! A total misuse of resources - Bournemouth has it right in using surveillance for benefit fraud etc.
Posted by: pooleboy, poole on 7:54am Sat 12 Apr 08
Rose - "a total misuse of resources" - who are you referring to? Poole Council or Jenny Paton who admits "playing the system". I guess benefit fraudsters would consider they're only playing the system too! As a resident in the same catchment area as Lilliput school I'm incensed that an ex-resident deliberately tricked the council into giving a school place to them. How DARE Jenny Paton!!!
Rose - "a total misuse of resources" - who are you referring to? Poole Council or Jenny Paton who admits "playing the system". I guess benefit fraudsters would consider they're only playing the system too! As a resident in the same catchment area as Lilliput school I'm incensed that an ex-resident deliberately tricked the council into giving a school place to them. How DARE Jenny Paton!!!
Posted by: Rose, Bournemouth on 7:58am Sat 12 Apr 08
I agree with you pooleboy - as a parent it makes me mad to hear the lengths some parents go to underhandedly to get their children into a certain school but I still don't believe the council was justified in using this particular method. Plus, the parents in this case weren't actually breaking rules as they were actually physically living in the catchment area at the time of their application - I think the system needs to be overhauled to prevent parents like these being able to 'work the system' so easily!
I agree with you pooleboy - as a parent it makes me mad to hear the lengths some parents go to underhandedly to get their children into a certain school but I still don't believe the council was justified in using this particular method. Plus, the parents in this case weren't actually breaking rules as they were actually physically living in the catchment area at the time of their application - I think the system needs to be overhauled to prevent parents like these being able to 'work the system' so easily!
Posted by: pooleboy, poole on 8:26am Sat 12 Apr 08
bobble212 - I think your comments merely illustrate why the Council has to go to lengths it has. According to you all parents would lie/cheat and defraud to better the situation for their children. Talk about setting an example to our children!!!
I agree with Rose when she says the system needs to be overhauled. The obvious solution would be that children can only attend while the family is resident in the catchment. The problem is this would be disruptive to childrens' education if people move. This protection of the child creates the loophole.
I believe a local school is for local people and people who play the system shouldn't play the "innocent victim". Jenny Paton for one is neither of these things.
bobble212 - I think your comments merely illustrate why the Council has to go to lengths it has. According to you all parents would lie/cheat and defraud to better the situation for their children. Talk about setting an example to our children!!!
I agree with Rose when she says the system needs to be overhauled. The obvious solution would be that children can only attend while the family is resident in the catchment. The problem is this would be disruptive to childrens' education if people move. This protection of the child creates the loophole.
I believe a local school is for local people and people who play the system shouldn't play the "innocent victim". Jenny Paton for one is neither of these things.
Did those doing the surveillance and taking photographs of the children have their backgrounds checked to make sure they were fit to interact with children? Teachers, social workers, play ground assistants, school caretakers and a whole host of others have to be checked before they can be involved with children in any way. What's to stop your friendly local paedophile saying he's doing surveillance for the council? If I see anyone watching or photographing others, I'll call the police. Wonder how many council spies would be caught.
Did those doing the surveillance and taking photographs of the children have their backgrounds checked to make sure they were fit to interact with children? Teachers, social workers, play ground assistants, school caretakers and a whole host of others have to be checked before they can be involved with children in any way. What's to stop your friendly local paedophile saying he's doing surveillance for the council? If I see anyone watching or photographing others, I'll call the police. Wonder how many council spies would be caught.
And aren't Poole Council playing the system when they use surveillance against parents in this way and not against businesses, developers,etc who fail to obey the law, because the Council know that such businesses have the financial resources to fight them in Court!
And as a matter of interest, pooleboy, where locally were you born? I will take the lack of a reply to this question to mean that you are not a local person.
And aren't Poole Council playing the system when they use surveillance against parents in this way and not against businesses, developers,etc who fail to obey the law, because the Council know that such businesses have the financial resources to fight them in Court!
And as a matter of interest, pooleboy, where locally were you born? I will take the lack of a reply to this question to mean that you are not a local person.
Posted by: pooleboy, poole on 8:49am Sat 12 Apr 08
John - born and bred in Poole matey. I think you raise a fair point although there is now an enforcement team for planning contraventions. I would agree certain developers get the kid-glove treatment relative to the hoi polloi.
John - born and bred in Poole matey. I think you raise a fair point although there is now an enforcement team for planning contraventions. I would agree certain developers get the kid-glove treatment relative to the hoi polloi.
[quote][bold]pooleboy[/bold] wrote:
Rose - "a total misuse of resources" - who are you referring to? Poole Council or Jenny Paton who admits "playing the system". I guess benefit fraudsters would consider they're only playing the system too! As a resident in the same catchment area as Lilliput school I'm incensed that an ex-resident deliberately tricked the council into giving a school place to them. How DARE Jenny Paton!!![/quote] What a load of rubbish. Mrs paton went to the council and they explained to her their rules. She followed the rules to the letter. They had their home up for sale but there was no guarantee it would sell.
None of this would be of any relavence if the council had an education and schools policy that was fit for purpose.
pooleboy wrote:
Rose - "a total misuse of resources" - who are you referring to? Poole Council or Jenny Paton who admits "playing the system". I guess benefit fraudsters would consider they're only playing the system too! As a resident in the same catchment area as Lilliput school I'm incensed that an ex-resident deliberately tricked the council into giving a school place to them. How DARE Jenny Paton!!!
What a load of rubbish. Mrs paton went to the council and they explained to her their rules. She followed the rules to the letter. They had their home up for sale but there was no guarantee it would sell.
None of this would be of any relavence if the council had an education and schools policy that was fit for purpose.
Posted by: alumchineboy, Alumchine on 9:30am Sat 12 Apr 08
These people were obviously not telling the truth to the council. As liars its right they should be investigated. Imagine if your child had been refused a place at this school because of these people.
These people were obviously not telling the truth to the council. As liars its right they should be investigated. Imagine if your child had been refused a place at this school because of these people.
[quote][bold]alumchineboy[/bold] wrote:
These people were obviously not telling the truth to the council. As liars its right they should be investigated. Imagine if your child had been refused a place at this school because of these people. [/quote] Which lie did they tell? Don't generalise - the facts please?
The "investigation" showed no case to answer - how was this if Mrs Paton told lies?
alumchineboy wrote:
These people were obviously not telling the truth to the council. As liars its right they should be investigated. Imagine if your child had been refused a place at this school because of these people.
Which lie did they tell? Don't generalise - the facts please?
The "investigation" showed no case to answer - how was this if Mrs Paton told lies?
Posted by: pooleboy, poole on 10:00am Sat 12 Apr 08
rayc: a complaint was made and the council investigated. They were cleared but freely admit they were "playing the system." The facts were evidently not transparent (or forthcoming) enough to avoid the investigation.
Let me ask you a question - do you think suspected benefit cheats should be investigated? I do. School placement is a limited resource and applications suspected of being economic with the truth should be investigated. That's what happened. Do I want to be spied on? Of course not. Should I expect it if my benefit application looks "dodgy". Certainly. But then again I wouldn't try it on like these people.
rayc: a complaint was made and the council investigated. They were cleared but freely admit they were "playing the system." The facts were evidently not transparent (or forthcoming) enough to avoid the investigation.
Let me ask you a question - do you think suspected benefit cheats should be investigated? I do. School placement is a limited resource and applications suspected of being economic with the truth should be investigated. That's what happened. Do I want to be spied on? Of course not. Should I expect it if my benefit application looks "dodgy". Certainly. But then again I wouldn't try it on like these people.
pooleboy,neither you or alumchineboy have yet to produce evidence of Mrs Paton having lied.
What we know without doubt is that she went to the council offices and asked for their advise which she followed. On the date in question there is no doubt she was in residence and the complaint was received afterwards i.e. the investigation was carried out after the date she needed to be in residence to be in catchment.
Do you know different?
pooleboy,neither you or alumchineboy have yet to produce evidence of Mrs Paton having lied.
What we know without doubt is that she went to the council offices and asked for their advise which she followed. On the date in question there is no doubt she was in residence and the complaint was received afterwards i.e. the investigation was carried out after the date she needed to be in residence to be in catchment.
Do you know different?
pooleboy said "School placement is a limited resource and applications suspected of being economic with the truth should be investigated".
That has been agreed by all contributors. Where the majority disagree with you is that the council used powers that were brought in to tackle terrorism and major crime. The majority think that spying on this family, { have you seen the log published in the Daily Mail?}, was an abuse of those powers.
We shallhave to disagree you think the council was correct I think their actions stink.
pooleboy said "School placement is a limited resource and applications suspected of being economic with the truth should be investigated".
That has been agreed by all contributors. Where the majority disagree with you is that the council used powers that were brought in to tackle terrorism and major crime. The majority think that spying on this family, { have you seen the log published in the Daily Mail?}, was an abuse of those powers.
We shallhave to disagree you think the council was correct I think their actions stink.
Posted by: bobble212, Christchurch on 10:36am Sat 12 Apr 08
[quote]bobble212 - I think your comments merely illustrate why the Council has to go to lengths it has. According to you all parents would lie/cheat[/quote] You are totally off the mark with this comment to me Pooleboy, I do not think any parent should lie/cheat to get into a good school and Jenny did neither of these, what I am saying is that Every parent would have stood up for themselves in the position Jenny found herself...she did nothing wrong !!
bobble212 - I think your comments merely illustrate why the Council has to go to lengths it has. According to you all parents would lie/cheat
You are totally off the mark with this comment to me Pooleboy, I do not think any parent should lie/cheat to get into a good school and Jenny did neither of these, what I am saying is that Every parent would have stood up for themselves in the position Jenny found herself...she did nothing wrong !!
Posted by: HAL101, Bournemouth on 10:49am Sat 12 Apr 08
Rose, Bournemouth on 7:58am today
What a storm in a tea cup ?
Jenny Paton check out the rules and followed them. The council followed their rules and checked Jenny out. This could have been done by a quick check of the records for a person’s main residence. [italic]Personal surveillance was intrusive and rather extreme.[/italic]
So what? By itself this is a petty incident. But what it represents is not.
The real issue here is that people have suddenly had it brought home to them that they are not free and independent but live in a controlled and dictated society, where an over powerful council and authority can place them under direct personal surveillance, and then dictate to them. It is the arbitrary power, with very little democratic representation, of the council’s administrative clerks that is the alarming issue here. [italic]And what they might do in the future.[/italic]
Rose, Bournemouth on 7:58am today
What a storm in a tea cup ?
Jenny Paton check out the rules and followed them. The council followed their rules and checked Jenny out. This could have been done by a quick check of the records for a person’s main residence. Personal surveillance was intrusive and rather extreme.
So what? By itself this is a petty incident. But what it represents is not.
The real issue here is that people have suddenly had it brought home to them that they are not free and independent but live in a controlled and dictated society, where an over powerful council and authority can place them under direct personal surveillance, and then dictate to them. It is the arbitrary power, with very little democratic representation, of the council’s administrative clerks that is the alarming issue here. And what they might do in the future.
Posted by: jammie jo no, Poole on 11:13am Sat 12 Apr 08
BEWARE ALL VICARS! As well as freely admitting to having no intention of living in the correct catchment area by the time that child starts school, Miss Paton also suggests she will pretend to be religious to get her children into church secondary schools. Its absolutely disgusting.[bold]bold[/bold]
BEWARE ALL VICARS! As well as freely admitting to having no intention of living in the correct catchment area by the time that child starts school, Miss Paton also suggests she will pretend to be religious to get her children into church secondary schools. Its absolutely disgusting.
Posted by: Carl Barron, Dorset on 11:38am Sat 12 Apr 08
There can be [bold]NO EXCUSE[/bold] for such [bold]Blatant Heavy Handed Abuse of Anti Terrorism Laws.[/bold]
To use such laws [bold]indiscriminately[/bold] and let the information that such has happened get into the [bold]Public Domain is NOT Acceptable[/bold] at all.
[bold]Those responsible must be sacked[/bold] and [bold]NOT redeployed[/bold] as there needs to be [bold]a clear cut message[/bold] sent to all Councils [bold]that such will NOT be tolerated.[/bold]
[bold]The reputations of many Councils in the UK absolutely reek of Corruption and abuse of powers.[/bold]
There can be NO EXCUSE for such Blatant Heavy Handed Abuse of Anti Terrorism Laws.
To use such laws indiscriminately and let the information that such has happened get into the Public Domain is NOT Acceptable at all.
Those responsible must be sacked and NOT redeployed as there needs to be a clear cut message sent to all Councils that such will NOT be tolerated.
The reputations of many Councils in the UK absolutely reek of Corruption and abuse of powers.
Posted by: Carl Barron, Dorset on 11:59am Sat 12 Apr 08
The fact that this [bold]Abuse of Power[/bold] was a [bold]Physical Surveillance[/bold] and [bold]not an Electronic Surveillance[/bold] [italic]as we are told.[/italic]
[italic]Makes one wonder,[/italic] has a group of [bold]paedophiles[/bold] entered [bold]Public Office[/bold] and are they exercising thier powers [bold]to Spy on Children and possibly Photograph?[/bold]
See how much [bold]'YOU ARE WATCHED'[/bold] by copy and pasting link below in Browser:
TaskNews+hot topics
http://uk.geocities.
com/tasknews/
The fact that this Abuse of Power was a Physical Surveillance and not an Electronic Surveillanceas we are told.
Makes one wonder, has a group of paedophiles entered Public Office and are they exercising thier powers to Spy on Children and possibly Photograph?
See how much 'YOU ARE WATCHED' by copy and pasting link below in Browser:
Posted by: alumchineboy, Alumchine on 12:05pm Sat 12 Apr 08
As I said earlier - liars........pretend
ed to be living somewhere when they probably were not and pretended their child was of a certain religous faith.
I'm surprised they can hold their heads up high.
As I said earlier - liars........pretend
ed to be living somewhere when they probably were not and pretended their child was of a certain religous faith.
I'm surprised they can hold their heads up high.
[quote][bold]alumchineboy[/bold] wrote:
As I said earlier - liars........pretend ed to be living somewhere when they probably were not and pretended their child was of a certain religous faith. I'm surprised they can hold their heads up high. [/quote] You havn't a single scrap of evidence to back up either of these claims. Are you sure you don't work for Al-Fayed?
alumchineboy wrote:
As I said earlier - liars........pretend ed to be living somewhere when they probably were not and pretended their child was of a certain religous faith. I'm surprised they can hold their heads up high.
You havn't a single scrap of evidence to back up either of these claims. Are you sure you don't work for Al-Fayed?
Posted by: alumchineboy, Alumchine on 12:21pm Sat 12 Apr 08
its obvious what they have tried to do and they have been caught out....nevermind, we all do things in life we regret. Get over it.
Well done Poole council.
its obvious what they have tried to do and they have been caught out....nevermind, we all do things in life we regret. Get over it.
Well done Poole council.
[quote][bold]alumchineboy[/bold] wrote:
its obvious what they have tried to do and they have been caught out....nevermind, we all do things in life we regret. Get over it. Well done Poole council. [/quote] They havn't been caught out of anything. The "investigation" backed up the application.
alumchineboy wrote:
its obvious what they have tried to do and they have been caught out....nevermind, we all do things in life we regret. Get over it. Well done Poole council.
They havn't been caught out of anything. The "investigation" backed up the application.
Posted by: RM, Poole, Dorset on 1:07pm Sat 12 Apr 08
[quote][bold]alumchineboy[/bold] wrote:
its obvious what they have tried to do and they have been caught out....nevermind, we all do things in life we regret. Get over it. Well done Poole council. [/quote] Alumchineboy, it appears obvious that you are not going to let facts or logic interfere with your 'knowledge' of this family's 'wrongdoings'.Earlie
r you called them 'liars', now you say 'they have been caught out'. At what exactly? Can I just mention, that the Council decision was that there was no case to answer & that the little girl was entitled to a place at the school, where her sibling already attended. And as for commending the Council's actions - you may well be on the receiving end of their attentions one day - will you be commending their actions then?
alumchineboy wrote:
its obvious what they have tried to do and they have been caught out....nevermind, we all do things in life we regret. Get over it. Well done Poole council.
Alumchineboy, it appears obvious that you are not going to let facts or logic interfere with your 'knowledge' of this family's 'wrongdoings'.Earlie
r you called them 'liars', now you say 'they have been caught out'. At what exactly? Can I just mention, that the Council decision was that there was no case to answer & that the little girl was entitled to a place at the school, where her sibling already attended. And as for commending the Council's actions - you may well be on the receiving end of their attentions one day - will you be commending their actions then?
Posted by: alumchineboy, Alumchine on 2:20pm Sat 12 Apr 08
As you are obviously a member of her family I applaud your support and I hope you get invited to one of her barbq's in the summer and one of her homes.
God , your easy to wind up.
As you are obviously a member of her family I applaud your support and I hope you get invited to one of her barbq's in the summer and one of her homes.
[quote][bold]Carl Barron[/bold] wrote:
There can be [bold]NO EXCUSE[/bold] for such [bold]Blatant Heavy Handed Abuse of Anti Terrorism Laws.[/bold] To use such laws [bold]indiscriminately[/bold] and let the information that such has happened get into the [bold]Public Domain is NOT Acceptable[/bold] at all. [bold]Those responsible must be sacked[/bold] and [bold]NOT redeployed[/bold] as there needs to be [bold]a clear cut message[/bold] sent to all Councils [bold]that such will NOT be tolerated.[/bold] [bold]The reputations of many Councils in the UK absolutely reek of Corruption and abuse of powers.[/bold] [/quote] Quote To use such laws [bold]indisciminately[/bold] and let the information that such has happened into the [bold][bold]Public Domain is NOT Acceptable[/bold] [/bold] at all.
Are you saying that such action is alright so long as the Council don't let people know that they are doing it. If so, the only ones that can be happy with this are [bold]the Council[/bold] when they are [bold]not revealing the truth[/bold] about other similar cases.
Carl Barron wrote:
There can be NO EXCUSE for such Blatant Heavy Handed Abuse of Anti Terrorism Laws. To use such laws indiscriminately and let the information that such has happened get into the Public Domain is NOT Acceptable at all. Those responsible must be sacked and NOT redeployed as there needs to be a clear cut message sent to all Councils that such will NOT be tolerated.The reputations of many Councils in the UK absolutely reek of Corruption and abuse of powers.
Quote To use such laws indisciminately and let the information that such has happened into the Public Domain is NOT Acceptable at all.
Are you saying that such action is alright so long as the Council don't let people know that they are doing it. If so, the only ones that can be happy with this are the Council when they are not revealing the truth about other similar cases.
[quote][bold]jammie jo no[/bold] wrote:
BEWARE ALL VICARS! As well as freely admitting to having no intention of living in the correct catchment area by the time that child starts school, Miss Paton also suggests she will pretend to be religious to get her children into church secondary schools. Its absolutely disgusting.[bold]bold[/bold] [/quote] She got around the system and now looks for sympathy and publicity,she needs showing up,for what she is.CONNIVING.
jammie jo no wrote:
BEWARE ALL VICARS! As well as freely admitting to having no intention of living in the correct catchment area by the time that child starts school, Miss Paton also suggests she will pretend to be religious to get her children into church secondary schools. Its absolutely disgusting.
She got around the system and now looks for sympathy and publicity,she needs showing up,for what she is.CONNIVING.
[quote][bold]jammie jo no[/bold] wrote:
BEWARE ALL VICARS! As well as freely admitting to having no intention of living in the correct catchment area by the time that child starts school, Miss Paton also suggests she will pretend to be religious to get her children into church secondary schools. Its absolutely disgusting.[bold]bold[/bold] [/quote] She got around the system and now looks for sympathy and publicity,she needs showing up,for what she is.CONNIVING.
jammie jo no wrote:
BEWARE ALL VICARS! As well as freely admitting to having no intention of living in the correct catchment area by the time that child starts school, Miss Paton also suggests she will pretend to be religious to get her children into church secondary schools. Its absolutely disgusting.
She got around the system and now looks for sympathy and publicity,she needs showing up,for what she is.CONNIVING.
[quote][bold]pooleboy[/bold] wrote:
rayc: a complaint was made and the council investigated. They were cleared but freely admit they were "playing the system." The facts were evidently not transparent (or forthcoming) enough to avoid the investigation.
Let me ask you a question - do you think suspected benefit cheats should be investigated? I do. School placement is a limited resource and applications suspected of being economic with the truth should be investigated. That's what happened. Do I want to be spied on? Of course not. Should I expect it if my benefit application looks "dodgy". Certainly. But then again I wouldn't try it on like these people. [/quote] Trying to equate benefit fraud with Ms Paton's actions is a nonsense. Benefit fraud is a crime; she did NOTHING illegal. You may think it immoral, but that's hardly the point. The council has been incredibly heavy-handed and misused its RIPA powers in this case. In fact, many believe IT has acted illegally.
pooleboy wrote:
rayc: a complaint was made and the council investigated. They were cleared but freely admit they were "playing the system." The facts were evidently not transparent (or forthcoming) enough to avoid the investigation.
Let me ask you a question - do you think suspected benefit cheats should be investigated? I do. School placement is a limited resource and applications suspected of being economic with the truth should be investigated. That's what happened. Do I want to be spied on? Of course not. Should I expect it if my benefit application looks "dodgy". Certainly. But then again I wouldn't try it on like these people.
Trying to equate benefit fraud with Ms Paton's actions is a nonsense. Benefit fraud is a crime; she did NOTHING illegal. You may think it immoral, but that's hardly the point. The council has been incredibly heavy-handed and misused its RIPA powers in this case. In fact, many believe IT has acted illegally.
Posted by: PokesdownMark, Pokesdown on 4:59pm Sat 12 Apr 08
To these people who think the parents were lying or playing the system... I'm not sure they were at all. I do know plenty of parents who have done, so I know what playing the system can mean: renting a property within catchment is a popular one, where the parents keeps their main property. Thats something I would consider well dodgy. But in this instance we are talking about a sibling attending. And its usually the case that siblings get first priority in any case - apart from in church schools which often have totally bizarre admission policies.
So lay off this couple. They are definitely the victims in this. There will be a record of authorisation within the council and I hope it is used to discipline all those involved.
To these people who think the parents were lying or playing the system... I'm not sure they were at all. I do know plenty of parents who have done, so I know what playing the system can mean: renting a property within catchment is a popular one, where the parents keeps their main property. Thats something I would consider well dodgy. But in this instance we are talking about a sibling attending. And its usually the case that siblings get first priority in any case - apart from in church schools which often have totally bizarre admission policies.
So lay off this couple. They are definitely the victims in this. There will be a record of authorisation within the council and I hope it is used to discipline all those involved.
Posted by: Christopher, Wallisdown & Winton West on 5:49pm Sat 12 Apr 08
What a load of nonsense this comments column has turned out. A number of inputs have come from people who have an ulterior motive to prove that this Jenny Paton was wrong, yet can not give, when asked the proof. Yet it stares us in the face, the council found no case to answer. Thats it. She was residing at the address she gave when applying for the school entrance, whether that house was up for sale is no matter until it is sold. To blatantly accuse some one of lying or being a liar without the facts is border line.
Like I said on another column regarding this story. It appears that Councils can do this surveillance thing if some one is trying to pull the wool over their eyes, yet a similar council can tell parents we are closing your school and your kids can now go to this school that school and that school. However if the parents of the Townsend Children tried to apply for those three schools they would have been told no it is not in your catchment area, or checked out. Maybe not in the same way as Poole but nevertheless, they would have be scrutinised.
So it appears that the council can say yes in one way and no in another. Two rules for the same matter.
It is obvious that parents want their children to go to the best schools, the schools with the better Ofsted reports. We know this is impossible. Why. Because the Government and Council legislations says so. Another Big Brother attitude towards the people of this country.
What a load of nonsense this comments column has turned out. A number of inputs have come from people who have an ulterior motive to prove that this Jenny Paton was wrong, yet can not give, when asked the proof. Yet it stares us in the face, the council found no case to answer. Thats it. She was residing at the address she gave when applying for the school entrance, whether that house was up for sale is no matter until it is sold. To blatantly accuse some one of lying or being a liar without the facts is border line.
Like I said on another column regarding this story. It appears that Councils can do this surveillance thing if some one is trying to pull the wool over their eyes, yet a similar council can tell parents we are closing your school and your kids can now go to this school that school and that school. However if the parents of the Townsend Children tried to apply for those three schools they would have been told no it is not in your catchment area, or checked out. Maybe not in the same way as Poole but nevertheless, they would have be scrutinised.
So it appears that the council can say yes in one way and no in another. Two rules for the same matter.
It is obvious that parents want their children to go to the best schools, the schools with the better Ofsted reports. We know this is impossible. Why. Because the Government and Council legislations says so. Another Big Brother attitude towards the people of this country.
Posted by: opinionated, Poole on 5:55pm Sat 12 Apr 08
Maybe Jenny Paton might like to come and sample my life for a few weeks. I have three children at three different schools due to people "playing the system". I'm a single parent and I work. I work very hard but in social care so I don't earn the megabucks required to live in Lilliput, although my son goes to middle school there, a place I obtained honestly. The next year my daughter failed to gain a place and now attends a middle school on the other side of Poole. My youngest child goes to 1st school in yet another suburb. Seeing her bleating on in the local and national press truly makes my blood boil. She has put her child into a school in an area that she had no intention of living in. The only reason her daughter is having nightmares is because an adult must have told her about the surveillance but presumeably she hasn't been told the dishonest means her parents obtained her place at a highly in demand school. I feel sorry for the people who do live in catchment but didn't get a place due to people like Jenny Paton, and will now have to travel further afeild every day. I have no sympathy for her at all and think its great that Poole Council are finally doing something about people who gain school places dishonestly at the expense of the rest of us. If she had nothing to hide it shouldn't bother her, its not like they installed CCTV inside her house or bugged her?! She needs to get this into perspective and accept that this is the consequence of her actions.
Maybe Jenny Paton might like to come and sample my life for a few weeks. I have three children at three different schools due to people "playing the system". I'm a single parent and I work. I work very hard but in social care so I don't earn the megabucks required to live in Lilliput, although my son goes to middle school there, a place I obtained honestly. The next year my daughter failed to gain a place and now attends a middle school on the other side of Poole. My youngest child goes to 1st school in yet another suburb. Seeing her bleating on in the local and national press truly makes my blood boil. She has put her child into a school in an area that she had no intention of living in. The only reason her daughter is having nightmares is because an adult must have told her about the surveillance but presumeably she hasn't been told the dishonest means her parents obtained her place at a highly in demand school. I feel sorry for the people who do live in catchment but didn't get a place due to people like Jenny Paton, and will now have to travel further afeild every day. I have no sympathy for her at all and think its great that Poole Council are finally doing something about people who gain school places dishonestly at the expense of the rest of us. If she had nothing to hide it shouldn't bother her, its not like they installed CCTV inside her house or bugged her?! She needs to get this into perspective and accept that this is the consequence of her actions.
Posted by: Carl Barron, Dorset on 7:26pm Sat 12 Apr 08
Posted by: John, Poole on 3:36pm today
[bold]Quote[/bold] Are you saying that such action is all right so long as the Council don't let people know that they are doing it. If so, the only ones that can be happy with this are the Council when they are not revealing the truth about other similar cases.
[bold]Reply[/bold] Come on [bold]John[/bold] , this is [bold]Britain[/bold] where the innocent are believed Guilty [bold]until proven otherwise[/bold] , [italic]right?[/italic]
It's also the country [bold]where the Criminals do what they like under the Protection of the Law[/bold] (touch me mate and I'll sue you) [italic]Right?[/italic]
Hence we have people such as [bold]Flunkit Blunkett[/bold] , who draft ATL [bold]Anti Terrorist Laws[/bold] that are [bold]used to terrorise innocent families.[/bold]
Why do you think even the [bold]TRAMPS[/bold] are jumping in trucks to get to France?
Posted by: John, Poole on 3:36pm today
Quote Are you saying that such action is all right so long as the Council don't let people know that they are doing it. If so, the only ones that can be happy with this are the Council when they are not revealing the truth about other similar cases.
Reply Come on John , this is Britain where the innocent are believed Guilty until proven otherwise , right?
It's also the country where the Criminals do what they like under the Protection of the Law (touch me mate and I'll sue you) Right?
Hence we have people such as Flunkit Blunkett , who draft ATL Anti Terrorist Laws that are used to terrorise innocent families.
Why do you think even the TRAMPS are jumping in trucks to get to France?
What "ordeal"? they didn't know it until it was over and as they've committed no crime, whats the problem. They were playing the system, and we all try that
What "ordeal"? they didn't know it until it was over and as they've committed no crime, whats the problem. They were playing the system, and we all try that
Posted by: alumchineboy, Alumchine on 9:39pm Sat 12 Apr 08
Overall, its been recognised that this Ms Paton is a devious, cheating, lying lech of a local two homed guardian reading 'soon to sue the council' lefty.
She doesnt deserve to have kids
Overall, its been recognised that this Ms Paton is a devious, cheating, lying lech of a local two homed guardian reading 'soon to sue the council' lefty.
Posted by: opinionated, Poole on 9:50pm Sat 12 Apr 08
alumchineboy your comments are totally out of order. I'm sure Jenny Paton is a good parent to say she doesn't deserve to have kids is an abhorrent statement. I don't agree with her actions but your words are strong and I am sure to her are extremely hurtful.
alumchineboy your comments are totally out of order. I'm sure Jenny Paton is a good parent to say she doesn't deserve to have kids is an abhorrent statement. I don't agree with her actions but your words are strong and I am sure to her are extremely hurtful.
Posted by: opinionated, Poole on 10:00pm Sat 12 Apr 08
There is a thread on this subject on the ITV News Forum if people feel strongly about this issue they should post because this isn't just a local issue.
There is a thread on this subject on the ITV News Forum if people feel strongly about this issue they should post because this isn't just a local issue.
opinionated Well said!!!
If she got her place and lived in catchment what is she complaining about??? The council would not look into this matter further for no reason at all.
Paul from Poole: places for all children, if only it was that simple
opinionated Well said!!!
If she got her place and lived in catchment what is she complaining about??? The council would not look into this matter further for no reason at all.
Paul from Poole: places for all children, if only it was that simple
Posted by: Christopher, Wallisdown & Winton West on 12:03am Sun 13 Apr 08
[quote][bold]alumchineboy[/bold] wrote:
Overall, its been recognised that this Ms Paton is a devious, cheating, lying lech of a local two homed guardian reading 'soon to sue the council' lefty.
She doesnt deserve to have kids[/quote] Read the story correctly. She applied whilst living there, the council chose to do what they did, rightly or wrongly. The Council found no case to answer. The story is to find if the council were right in using this method to find information. They were wrong and the majority say so as does the polls.
Get a life.
alumchineboy wrote:
Overall, its been recognised that this Ms Paton is a devious, cheating, lying lech of a local two homed guardian reading 'soon to sue the council' lefty.
She doesnt deserve to have kids
Read the story correctly. She applied whilst living there, the council chose to do what they did, rightly or wrongly. The Council found no case to answer. The story is to find if the council were right in using this method to find information. They were wrong and the majority say so as does the polls.
Posted by: AvidReader, Bournemouth on 7:02am Sun 13 Apr 08
[italic][bold]SO[/bold][/italic] , can we now know who the others were under surveillance and their circumstances, just so we can make a comparison please.
SO , can we now know who the others were under surveillance and their circumstances, just so we can make a comparison please.
Posted by: pooleboy, poole on 8:16am Sun 13 Apr 08
christopher of wallisdown - sure Ms Paton was cleared after investigation. What about the two others who were also investigated and found to be cheating and had their offered places revoked? Nothing to say about them then? Or should we not have bothered and let them lie and cheat a place that isn't for them to the detriment of everyone else?
christopher of wallisdown - sure Ms Paton was cleared after investigation. What about the two others who were also investigated and found to be cheating and had their offered places revoked? Nothing to say about them then? Or should we not have bothered and let them lie and cheat a place that isn't for them to the detriment of everyone else?
Posted by: fedupwithjobsworths, Moordown on 12:21pm Sun 13 Apr 08
I just wonder how many staff our local authorities employ to run and enforce their school admissions policies - I bet the total cost runs into £100K’s PA. I think our councils have lost the plot; this money should be spent on employing teachers and teaching assistants not jobsworths. Our councils are always bleating poverty but always seem to find megabucks for non-essential tasks such as this. Instead of persecuting parents the LEA’s should be given a kick up the backside to sort out underperforming schools, then we would not have this problem – but blaming parents and employing jobsworths is a far easier option than fixing the root cause isn’t it. This is just another example of how local authorities serve themselves rather than the general public.
I just wonder how many staff our local authorities employ to run and enforce their school admissions policies - I bet the total cost runs into £100K’s PA. I think our councils have lost the plot; this money should be spent on employing teachers and teaching assistants not jobsworths. Our councils are always bleating poverty but always seem to find megabucks for non-essential tasks such as this. Instead of persecuting parents the LEA’s should be given a kick up the backside to sort out underperforming schools, then we would not have this problem – but blaming parents and employing jobsworths is a far easier option than fixing the root cause isn’t it. This is just another example of how local authorities serve themselves rather than the general public.
[bold]bold[/bold] As a very supposedly very near neighbour to Jenny and Tim Paton I can confirm that they were NOT living in that catchment area for the whole time they were waiting to get their daughter into Lilliput School, they have played the system big time !!
As a very supposedly very near neighbour to Jenny and Tim Paton I can confirm that they were NOT living in that catchment area for the whole time they were waiting to get their daughter into Lilliput School, they have played the system big time !!
Posted by: alumchineboy, Alumchine on 2:29pm Sun 13 Apr 08
Thank you sarah - as I said they were obviously guilty of trying to cheat but no doubt it couldnt be proved.
Not so sweet and innocent and great now are they ?
Thank you sarah - as I said they were obviously guilty of trying to cheat but no doubt it couldnt be proved.
Not so sweet and innocent and great now are they ?
Posted by: Christopher, Wallisdown & Winton West on 3:16pm Sun 13 Apr 08
[quote][bold]pooleboy[/bold] wrote:
christopher of wallisdown - sure Ms Paton was cleared after investigation. What about the two others who were also investigated and found to be cheating and had their offered places revoked? Nothing to say about them then? Or should we not have bothered and let them lie and cheat a place that isn't for them to the detriment of everyone else?[/quote] It is obvious that Ms Paton stood her ground, and had justifiable reason to do so in her case. As it has been said, the Council found no grounds themselves to revoke Ms Patons application. That in itself shows not guilt done. If as said by Sarah who states she knows different, then the council in this case did not find this.
I agree with those who state that the LEA and Educational systems should be improving the system so as to allow more into the schools of their choices. Having worked in many of the schools in and around Poole and Bournemouth, the schools remain the same size, but the catchment areas have increased by many.
In my opinion, if people are aware that someone is cheating the system or any system, then they should bring this to fore before the matter, and not after. The old shut the gate after the horse has bolted.
pooleboy wrote:
christopher of wallisdown - sure Ms Paton was cleared after investigation. What about the two others who were also investigated and found to be cheating and had their offered places revoked? Nothing to say about them then? Or should we not have bothered and let them lie and cheat a place that isn't for them to the detriment of everyone else?
It is obvious that Ms Paton stood her ground, and had justifiable reason to do so in her case. As it has been said, the Council found no grounds themselves to revoke Ms Patons application. That in itself shows not guilt done. If as said by Sarah who states she knows different, then the council in this case did not find this.
I agree with those who state that the LEA and Educational systems should be improving the system so as to allow more into the schools of their choices. Having worked in many of the schools in and around Poole and Bournemouth, the schools remain the same size, but the catchment areas have increased by many.
In my opinion, if people are aware that someone is cheating the system or any system, then they should bring this to fore before the matter, and not after. The old shut the gate after the horse has bolted.
[quote][bold]Carl Barron[/bold] wrote:
Posted by: John, Poole on 3:36pm today [bold]Quote[/bold] Are you saying that such action is all right so long as the Council don't let people know that they are doing it. If so, the only ones that can be happy with this are the Council when they are not revealing the truth about other similar cases. [bold]Reply[/bold] Come on [bold]John[/bold] , this is [bold]Britain[/bold] where the innocent are believed Guilty [bold]until proven otherwise[/bold] , [italic]right?[/italic] It's also the country [bold]where the Criminals do what they like under the Protection of the Law[/bold] (touch me mate and I'll sue you) [italic]Right?[/italic] Hence we have people such as [bold]Flunkit Blunkett[/bold] , who draft ATL [bold]Anti Terrorist Laws[/bold] that are [bold]used to terrorise innocent families.[/bold] Why do you think even the [bold]TRAMPS[/bold] are jumping in trucks to get to France? [/quote] Carl Barron
There is a non-sequitur in your comments.
On the one hand you say 'this is Britain where the innocent are believed Guilty until proven otherwise.' On the other hand, you say 'It's also the country where the Criminals do what they like under the Protection of the law (touch me mate and I'll sue you).'
Either people are innocent and should not be touched (to use your phrase) or they are Guilty and are therefore not innocent.
The only thing that appears Right in your posting, as usual, are your political views.
Also, where did this rumour that even the TRAMPS are jumping in trucks to get to France... Poole Council's surveillance team?!
Carl Barron wrote:
Posted by: John, Poole on 3:36pm today Quote Are you saying that such action is all right so long as the Council don't let people know that they are doing it. If so, the only ones that can be happy with this are the Council when they are not revealing the truth about other similar cases. Reply Come on John , this is Britain where the innocent are believed Guilty until proven otherwise , right? It's also the country where the Criminals do what they like under the Protection of the Law (touch me mate and I'll sue you) Right? Hence we have people such as Flunkit Blunkett , who draft ATL Anti Terrorist Laws that are used to terrorise innocent families. Why do you think even the TRAMPS are jumping in trucks to get to France?
Carl Barron
There is a non-sequitur in your comments.
On the one hand you say 'this is Britain where the innocent are believed Guilty until proven otherwise.' On the other hand, you say 'It's also the country where the Criminals do what they like under the Protection of the law (touch me mate and I'll sue you).'
Either people are innocent and should not be touched (to use your phrase) or they are Guilty and are therefore not innocent.
The only thing that appears Right in your posting, as usual, are your political views.
Also, where did this rumour that even the TRAMPS are jumping in trucks to get to France... Poole Council's surveillance team?!
Seems to me there are two issues here 1. did Ms Paton "play the system? yes perhaps 2. did she break the law no!
So RIPA should not have been the system used it is for crime investigation (which includes benefit fraud) total waste of tax payers money all they had to do was visit the house and that would have proved if they lived there or not there is nothing to say people cannot have two houses if this is not acceptable then tighten up the system not spy on people!!
Seems to me there are two issues here 1. did Ms Paton "play the system? yes perhaps 2. did she break the law no!
So RIPA should not have been the system used it is for crime investigation (which includes benefit fraud) total waste of tax payers money all they had to do was visit the house and that would have proved if they lived there or not there is nothing to say people cannot have two houses if this is not acceptable then tighten up the system not spy on people!!
Posted by: swisstony, poole on 8:11pm Sun 13 Apr 08
It is quite simple. The intent of the Ripa law was to assist in the prevention of terrorism and the prevention of serious crime. As neither of these apply it is a matter of fact that this law has been mis-applied. A number of questions must be answered in the public domain
1. What is the "chain of command" that results in the authorisations of such ivestigations?
2. What systems are in place to ensure that data accrued is secure and that no unauthorised personnel have access to it?
3. What systems are in place to ensure that surveillance staff have had criminal record checks?
My personal opinion is that the victim in this case has suffered a clear breach under the appropriate article of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides for a right to a private life.This could prove very expensive to the council should a case prove succesful. I further feel that the council has no right to be spying on its own residents when a crime has not even been suspected to have been committed (trying to get into a school is not a crime, unlike benefit fraud etc.). This is very dangerous territory and has echoes of state paranoia which I last encountered in the former GDR (East Germany). Everybody checks on everybody, but those doing the checking also need to be checked, and they need to be checked on too. I am very disappointed in the council persuing this line and would even go as far as calling for the resignation of the Chief Executive.
It is quite simple. The intent of the Ripa law was to assist in the prevention of terrorism and the prevention of serious crime. As neither of these apply it is a matter of fact that this law has been mis-applied. A number of questions must be answered in the public domain
1. What is the "chain of command" that results in the authorisations of such ivestigations?
2. What systems are in place to ensure that data accrued is secure and that no unauthorised personnel have access to it?
3. What systems are in place to ensure that surveillance staff have had criminal record checks?
My personal opinion is that the victim in this case has suffered a clear breach under the appropriate article of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides for a right to a private life.This could prove very expensive to the council should a case prove succesful. I further feel that the council has no right to be spying on its own residents when a crime has not even been suspected to have been committed (trying to get into a school is not a crime, unlike benefit fraud etc.). This is very dangerous territory and has echoes of state paranoia which I last encountered in the former GDR (East Germany). Everybody checks on everybody, but those doing the checking also need to be checked, and they need to be checked on too. I am very disappointed in the council persuing this line and would even go as far as calling for the resignation of the Chief Executive.
Posted by: swisstony, poole on 8:13pm Sun 13 Apr 08
It is quite simple. The intent of the Ripa law was to assist in the prevention of terrorism and the prevention of serious crime. As neither of these apply it is a matter of fact that this law has been mis-applied. A number of questions must be answered in the public domain
1. What is the "chain of command" that results in the authorisations of such ivestigations?
2. What systems are in place to ensure that data accrued is secure and that no unauthorised personnel have access to it?
3. What systems are in place to ensure that surveillance staff have had criminal record checks?
My personal opinion is that the victim in this case has suffered a clear breach under the appropriate article of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides for a right to a private life.This could prove very expensive to the council should a case prove succesful. I further feel that the council has no right to be spying on its own residents when a crime has not even been suspected to have been committed (trying to get into a school is not a crime, unlike benefit fraud etc.). This is very dangerous territory and has echoes of state paranoia which I last encountered in the former GDR (East Germany). Everybody checks on everybody, but those doing the checking also need to be checked, and they need to be checked on too. I am very disappointed in the council persuing this line and would even go as far as calling for the resignation of the Chief Executive.
It is quite simple. The intent of the Ripa law was to assist in the prevention of terrorism and the prevention of serious crime. As neither of these apply it is a matter of fact that this law has been mis-applied. A number of questions must be answered in the public domain
1. What is the "chain of command" that results in the authorisations of such ivestigations?
2. What systems are in place to ensure that data accrued is secure and that no unauthorised personnel have access to it?
3. What systems are in place to ensure that surveillance staff have had criminal record checks?
My personal opinion is that the victim in this case has suffered a clear breach under the appropriate article of the European Convention on Human Rights which provides for a right to a private life.This could prove very expensive to the council should a case prove succesful. I further feel that the council has no right to be spying on its own residents when a crime has not even been suspected to have been committed (trying to get into a school is not a crime, unlike benefit fraud etc.). This is very dangerous territory and has echoes of state paranoia which I last encountered in the former GDR (East Germany). Everybody checks on everybody, but those doing the checking also need to be checked, and they need to be checked on too. I am very disappointed in the council persuing this line and would even go as far as calling for the resignation of the Chief Executive.
Posted by: alumchineboy, Alumchine on 8:13pm Sun 13 Apr 08
ABSOLUTE TOSH - this was someone who obviously the council knew was trying to fiddle things. They took the necessary action and this is why they havent apologised to her. I doubt this would ever end up in civil court as the council would be allowed to explain why they had their reasons to take this course of action.
One thing that is interesting is why there are a number of people here bleating on about RIPA when its obvious that these people were not telling the truth. And as for 'just visit the house ?'- I suppose you expect that the council officers would just be invited in to take a good look around by the people ?
No, I didnt think so either.
Well done the council - hopefully as a result of all this others will think twice before 'playing the system' which will hopefully mean that other local children dont lose out to second home greedy individuals.
ABSOLUTE TOSH - this was someone who obviously the council knew was trying to fiddle things. They took the necessary action and this is why they havent apologised to her. I doubt this would ever end up in civil court as the council would be allowed to explain why they had their reasons to take this course of action.
One thing that is interesting is why there are a number of people here bleating on about RIPA when its obvious that these people were not telling the truth. And as for 'just visit the house ?'- I suppose you expect that the council officers would just be invited in to take a good look around by the people ?
No, I didnt think so either.
Well done the council - hopefully as a result of all this others will think twice before 'playing the system' which will hopefully mean that other local children dont lose out to second home greedy individuals.
Posted by: LEA with no stratagy, POOLE on 9:48pm Sun 13 Apr 08
Look at this hate and vitriol among people who all care enough to discuss a real problem.
Aim your concern at the real problem the LEA and this need not happen.
The LEA have to spy because they will not do their real job properly.
It is their job to reorganise schools so that school places match the actual need.
They will not do this.
They allow over subscribed schools to grow.
This sucks children out of the system into these places.
This leads to under numbers in other schools.
The response has to be to close places somewhere.
If these places are not removed we have to pay for unused capacity.
This leads to underfunding in the weakest schools poor staffing and support then a downward spiral.
We can just make the popular schools bigger.
We all Know this will eventually ruin them.
We could ensure that schools only have places for the children in their area.
This will be unpopular with the immobile or those unable to afford to move.
If we do decide to control the number of places well we will end up with well funded schools that all produce good results.
This is a peculiar authority ,very small with almost every type of school possible.
We could decide all of Poole is a beautiful place for our kids and really organise schools properly.
Why will this not happen?
Because the councillors who all hypocritically condemned the spying are the first to make sure no reorganisation can occur.
Tell them their successful school needs to be 40% smaller and they will howl with protest.
The councillors have told you they are not in control ,they claim not to Know this was happening.
The local officers did not tell you the real solutions you had an alternative.
They want the easy way out.
The solution is to combine education with Dorset.
Small special interests would be less effective as councillors would work in a larger group.
The local education authority would be strengthened ,it is really too small.
It cannot support the weakest schools and it cannot control the strongest.
Stop hitting out at each other and get something done.
Look at this hate and vitriol among people who all care enough to discuss a real problem.
Aim your concern at the real problem the LEA and this need not happen.
The LEA have to spy because they will not do their real job properly.
It is their job to reorganise schools so that school places match the actual need.
They will not do this.
They allow over subscribed schools to grow.
This sucks children out of the system into these places.
This leads to under numbers in other schools.
The response has to be to close places somewhere.
If these places are not removed we have to pay for unused capacity.
This leads to underfunding in the weakest schools poor staffing and support then a downward spiral.
We can just make the popular schools bigger.
We all Know this will eventually ruin them.
We could ensure that schools only have places for the children in their area.
This will be unpopular with the immobile or those unable to afford to move.
If we do decide to control the number of places well we will end up with well funded schools that all produce good results.
This is a peculiar authority ,very small with almost every type of school possible.
We could decide all of Poole is a beautiful place for our kids and really organise schools properly.
Why will this not happen?
Because the councillors who all hypocritically condemned the spying are the first to make sure no reorganisation can occur.
Tell them their successful school needs to be 40% smaller and they will howl with protest.
The councillors have told you they are not in control ,they claim not to Know this was happening.
The local officers did not tell you the real solutions you had an alternative.
They want the easy way out.
The solution is to combine education with Dorset.
Small special interests would be less effective as councillors would work in a larger group.
The local education authority would be strengthened ,it is really too small.
It cannot support the weakest schools and it cannot control the strongest.
Stop hitting out at each other and get something done.
Posted by: Carl Barron, Dorset on 10:05pm Sun 13 Apr 08
[quote][bold]John[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Carl Barron[/bold] wrote:
Posted by: John, Poole on 3:36pm today [bold]Quote[/bold] Are you saying that such action is all right so long as the Council don't let people know that they are doing it. If so, the only ones that can be happy with this are the Council when they are not revealing the truth about other similar cases. [bold]Reply[/bold] Come on [bold]John[/bold] , this is [bold]Britain[/bold] where the innocent are believed Guilty [bold]until proven otherwise[/bold] , [italic]right?[/italic] It's also the country [bold]where the Criminals do what they like under the Protection of the Law[/bold] (touch me mate and I'll sue you) [italic]Right?[/italic] Hence we have people such as [bold]Flunkit Blunkett[/bold] , who draft ATL [bold]Anti Terrorist Laws[/bold] that are [bold]used to terrorise innocent families.[/bold] Why do you think even the [bold]TRAMPS[/bold] are jumping in trucks to get to France? [/quote] Carl Barron
There is a non-sequitur in your comments.
On the one hand you say 'this is Britain where the innocent are believed Guilty until proven otherwise.' On the other hand, you say 'It's also the country where the Criminals do what they like under the Protection of the law (touch me mate and I'll sue you).'
Either people are innocent and should not be touched (to use your phrase) or they are Guilty and are therefore not innocent.
The only thing that appears Right in your posting, as usual, are your political views.
Also, where did this rumour that even the TRAMPS are jumping in trucks to get to France... Poole Council's surveillance team?![/quote] I am [bold]aware[/bold] of my deliberate grammatical mis-doings.
However You can bet the [bold]Watchers will be Watched[/bold] themselves from now on.
This little saga has opened a few eyes in high places, [italic]that's for sure.[/italic]
Blunkett's [bold]actions[/bold] [bold]have proved extremely embarrassing[/bold] for the [bold]Establishment[/bold] as news has [bold]travelled around the World[/bold] of Britain's misuse of Anti Terrorism Laws. It was [bold]Blunkett's decision[/bold] to grant these powers to Local Councils, [italic]after all.[/italic]
The Tories, should have a [bold]Whale of a time[/bold] in The Commons over this.
John wrote:
Carl Barron wrote:
Posted by: John, Poole on 3:36pm today Quote Are you saying that such action is all right so long as the Council don't let people know that they are doing it. If so, the only ones that can be happy with this are the Council when they are not revealing the truth about other similar cases. Reply Come on John , this is Britain where the innocent are believed Guilty until proven otherwise , right? It's also the country where the Criminals do what they like under the Protection of the Law (touch me mate and I'll sue you) Right? Hence we have people such as Flunkit Blunkett , who draft ATL Anti Terrorist Laws that are used to terrorise innocent families. Why do you think even the TRAMPS are jumping in trucks to get to France?
Carl Barron
There is a non-sequitur in your comments.
On the one hand you say 'this is Britain where the innocent are believed Guilty until proven otherwise.' On the other hand, you say 'It's also the country where the Criminals do what they like under the Protection of the law (touch me mate and I'll sue you).'
Either people are innocent and should not be touched (to use your phrase) or they are Guilty and are therefore not innocent.
The only thing that appears Right in your posting, as usual, are your political views.
Also, where did this rumour that even the TRAMPS are jumping in trucks to get to France... Poole Council's surveillance team?!
I am aware of my deliberate grammatical mis-doings.
However You can bet the Watchers will be Watched themselves from now on.
This little saga has opened a few eyes in high places, that's for sure.
Blunkett's actionshave proved extremely embarrassing for the Establishment as news has travelled around the World of Britain's misuse of Anti Terrorism Laws. It was Blunkett's decision to grant these powers to Local Councils, after all.
The Tories, should have a Whale of a time in The Commons over this.
[quote][bold]sarah[/bold] wrote:
[bold]bold[/bold] As a very supposedly very near neighbour to Jenny and Tim Paton I can confirm that they were NOT living in that catchment area for the whole time they were waiting to get their daughter into Lilliput School, they have played the system big time !![/quote] The dealine for accepting or rejecting applications had passed, so the family were well within their rights to request a place at this school regardless of catchment. I am in the catchment of Poole's most underachieving schools. There is no way on earth my children will attend these schools. Is that my fault being a parent and wanting what's best for my children, or is it the fault of the LEA for allowing such poor under-achieving schools? THAT's where the problems is. People would not need to choose any schhol if they were all up to the same standard. Some people just can't see that this family were proved INNOCENT of any wrong doing, but insist on bashing them instead of the real "villains" Are people like you happy to expect a raise in council tax to pay for spying?
sarah wrote:
As a very supposedly very near neighbour to Jenny and Tim Paton I can confirm that they were NOT living in that catchment area for the whole time they were waiting to get their daughter into Lilliput School, they have played the system big time !!
The dealine for accepting or rejecting applications had passed, so the family were well within their rights to request a place at this school regardless of catchment. I am in the catchment of Poole's most underachieving schools. There is no way on earth my children will attend these schools. Is that my fault being a parent and wanting what's best for my children, or is it the fault of the LEA for allowing such poor under-achieving schools? THAT's where the problems is. People would not need to choose any schhol if they were all up to the same standard. Some people just can't see that this family were proved INNOCENT of any wrong doing, but insist on bashing them instead of the real "villains" Are people like you happy to expect a raise in council tax to pay for spying?
[quote][bold]Carl Barron[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]John[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Carl Barron[/bold] wrote: Posted by: John, Poole on 3:36pm today [bold]Quote[/bold] Are you saying that such action is all right so long as the Council don't let people know that they are doing it. If so, the only ones that can be happy with this are the Council when they are not revealing the truth about other similar cases. [bold]Reply[/bold] Come on [bold]John[/bold] , this is [bold]Britain[/bold] where the innocent are believed Guilty [bold]until proven otherwise[/bold] , [italic]right?[/italic] It's also the country [bold]where the Criminals do what they like under the Protection of the Law[/bold] (touch me mate and I'll sue you) [italic]Right?[/italic] Hence we have people such as [bold]Flunkit Blunkett[/bold] , who draft ATL [bold]Anti Terrorist Laws[/bold] that are [bold]used to terrorise innocent families.[/bold] Why do you think even the [bold]TRAMPS[/bold] are jumping in trucks to get to France? [/quote] Carl Barron There is a non-sequitur in your comments. On the one hand you say 'this is Britain where the innocent are believed Guilty until proven otherwise.' On the other hand, you say 'It's also the country where the Criminals do what they like under the Protection of the law (touch me mate and I'll sue you).' Either people are innocent and should not be touched (to use your phrase) or they are Guilty and are therefore not innocent. The only thing that appears Right in your posting, as usual, are your political views. Also, where did this rumour that even the TRAMPS are jumping in trucks to get to France... Poole Council's surveillance team?![/quote] I am [bold]aware[/bold] of my deliberate grammatical mis-doings. However You can bet the [bold]Watchers will be Watched[/bold] themselves from now on. This little saga has opened a few eyes in high places, [italic]that's for sure.[/italic] Blunkett's [bold]actions[/bold] [bold]have proved extremely embarrassing[/bold] for the [bold]Establishment[/bold] as news has [bold]travelled around the World[/bold] of Britain's misuse of Anti Terrorism Laws. It was [bold]Blunkett's decision[/bold] to grant these powers to Local Councils, [italic]after all.[/italic] The Tories, should have a [bold]Whale of a time[/bold] in The Commons over this. [/quote] Why on earth do you think that 'the Tories should have a [bold]Whale of a time[/bold] in The Commons over this', when it was the [bold]Conservative small fry at Poole Council[/bold] who are responsible for this situation? I do, however, accept that obtaining a coherent statement on the subject from the Cabinet portfolio holder responsible, [bold]Cllr Woodcock, is as elusive as Finding Nemo!![/bold]
Carl Barron wrote:
John wrote:
Carl Barron wrote: Posted by: John, Poole on 3:36pm today Quote Are you saying that such action is all right so long as the Council don't let people know that they are doing it. If so, the only ones that can be happy with this are the Council when they are not revealing the truth about other similar cases. Reply Come on John , this is Britain where the innocent are believed Guilty until proven otherwise , right? It's also the country where the Criminals do what they like under the Protection of the Law (touch me mate and I'll sue you) Right? Hence we have people such as Flunkit Blunkett , who draft ATL Anti Terrorist Laws that are used to terrorise innocent families. Why do you think even the TRAMPS are jumping in trucks to get to France?
Play video
Print
Email this
Comment