It says they were collecting all the signature of support forms. And to be honest its done now and in the public domain, so people will make their own minds up.

Firstly, why are you again complaining to me about what school heads do or do not do, or what the Wakefield Trinity Wildcats Community team have asked permission to do?

Secondly, I have already stated and will state again (you seem unable to absorb this information) that we do not rule out support from Children because the law does not and as long as that support was gained in an appropriate way then we are fine with this. We would consider 'appropriate' to be at the knowledge or behest of anyone who as a legal or implied parental right and permission to supervise minors.

If anyone is upset then by how their children have been approached then we will always apologise, even if ultimately it is not our direct responsibility as we can't be held responsible for the actions of others.

Finally, you are so bloody bitter mate, this has not tarnished our campaign at all, in your warped world yes. I think the school and mostly Methley Residents Association are the ones tarnished... we did not do anything wrong and still apologised!

Fine no skin of my nose, you think what you want. If I am bitter your entrenched and obtuse.

its dictionary time!!! first one back with both gets one of teds old suits!!!

It is like going round in circles with you, now you have realised that you don't have leg to stand on criticising us, because we did nothing wrong, you are turning this and our Statement of Support into some political football... you are as low as they are!

Catwoman1 has clearly stated that as far as she is concerned she does not have any forms that appear to be from Wakefield schools. Any forms that don't have a recognisable address on them are not being included.

I think you should apologise to Catwoman1... after all, you want me to apologise for lots of things!

Finally, you are only arguing because your view is different, the balance thing is just smoke-screen rubbish! You are making yourself, once again, look a bit of a one eyed fool!

Finally, you are in some ways correct, it might not play a huge part in the final decision and of course we only did this because of their claims that 'local people don't want this'... well, we have proved them wrong, we have already 6 times the support they have and growing. No longer can a news story or paper claim, despite huge local objection... because it is not true... and we have over 5000 Statements to prove it!

All I was doing was pointing out the law regarding children's views, as you seemed to imply they shouldn't be taken seriously in your statement about average 6 year olds and national planning policy.

I don't see what this reply has to do with the part of the quote you highlighted TBF.

Yes, I am entrenched (that is not really a negative position, just a valid an explanation) but not sure about obtuse... what is obtuse about my published motives?

Does that make you half bitter then... result!

Some outstanding knee jerking there Dillo. A career in Riverdance surely beckons.....

The pertinent question is, has Yorkcourt applied to extend the development by a third to 300 acres?

I am not so sure it is a knee jerk mate... I am upset that they once again are quite happy to scrape the bottom of the moral dustbin to solicit wider objection.

As for the Yorkcourt applying to extend the development then it is no! The only thing that is changed is the recommendation in the LDF to increase the land allocation at Newmarket to 51 ha from the previous 33ha for B8 development and it's approval by Wakefield MDC in January. Also, once again they do love to add an extra amount of land area when they can... this one is not too bad, they have added 30% or so on to the actual total site area of 213 acres (excluding the new road) I wonder if they do it on purpose? It does make it sound like the site area has extended does it not... hmmm, clearly just a poor description then!

The best one was a letter in the Wakefield Express where they writer said 'they were taking over 750 acres of beautiful green-belt land at Newmarket'!!! Bloody hell, where did the other 530 acres some from!!!

not having a go, just adding to your point really from the point of view of the school and the education authority.
certainly didnt imply anything about about NPP or 6 year olds, you may have me mixed up with someone else i think.

Never seen it, must be where they keep the unicorns. Certainly not the $hit tip of scrub land i drive past!!!!

Soz kinleycat - half asleep here.. I did have you mixed up withe someone else.

Apologies.

I have an initial report that the headmaster has indeed been misquoted by Methley News...

I spoke to him very briefly today and he is calling me tomorrow, so will get confirmation from him exactly what he said in the newsletter to parents. Not that when I e-mail Methley News and ask them to correct their stories they are going to do anything anyway, but at least it puts this to bed and makes me feel better!