Goodrich School in Daily Mail

[superdolly]

The "friend" in the Daily Mail article is a parent at Goodrich who also writes features for the Daily Mail!!! Her quote in that article also sounds similar to Emily's on this post. Is it a coincidence? How damaging this is for the school and all the children who go to it.

[Emily]

I did not start this thread (which I imagine will be deleted very soon) and read the newspaper story (online) in shock and surprise. All I'm trying to do is defend someone who is being accused of racism and of harrassment and all sorts. I shall leave you all to enjoy your conspiracy theories - have fun.

[minder]

Welcome to the forum Superdolly!

[Kokoba]

minder Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Welcome to the forum Superdolly!

:)

[Heart108]

.

[Huguenot]

Have you read anything I've said Mick Mac?

Really disappointed with your response.

[northlondoner]

Uh .... Guys it's the Mail FFS. Only accurate thing is probably the spelling. And best double check THAT as well.

[Huguenot]

I'm starting to get the real picture now.

A young capable ambitious head (who is not the old head) has been trying to create a young capable ambitious school.

She has faced months of abuse, and eventually was the recipient of hate posters scattered around school by people who thought they could get away with calling it a joke.

When that failed they went to the nastiest dirtiest most racist gutter press with a twisted story.

When I say 'you dirty bastards' you know who I'm talking to right?

[showboat]

I still wish we could hear Mrs Paterson's side of the story. I'd be interested to know what these changes are and what her vision for the school is (as I say, my kid may well be there in a few years).

At the risk of being a stuck record, she really should've talked to Mr Moyles first. However, the choice of the Daily Mail to leak the story to speaks volumes about the intention of those behind it. Emily, you can defend them all you want, but you can't deny that the Daily Mail peddles a very specific line and they would've known how the story would be spun.

[Emily]

I agree 100% it would have been much better for everyone had the story not made the papers. Not good at all.

[ginghamgirl]

superdolly Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The "friend" in the Daily Mail article is a parent

> at Goodrich who also writes features for the Daily

> Mail!!! Her quote in that article also sounds

> similar to Emily's on this post. Is it a

> coincidence? How damaging this is for the school

> and all the children who go to it.

[AnotherPaul]

Huguenot, please?

> I'm starting to get the real picture now.

Is that Mail + Forum = Truth?

>

> A young capable ambitious head (who is not the old

> head) has been trying to create a young capable

> ambitious school.

If you've had a conversation with her you'd know how bonkers that statement is.

>

> She has faced months of abuse, and eventually was

> the recipient of hate posters scattered around

> school by people who thought they could get away

> with calling it a joke.

What abuse? 'Hate posters' with pictures of white Charles Darwin on them and criticism of the performance of someone in a highly public position. That's not abuse, it's valid discussion. The Mail publishing the story is an abuse of the school's right to sort this out themselves but what else would we expect from that crappy rag?

>

> When that failed they went to the nastiest

> dirtiest most racist gutter press with a twisted

> story.

When 'it' failed? 'It' has not failed because there is no 'it'. And who is the 'they'. This is vague gumpf. Factually speaking some parents aren't happy with the way the school is being run, quite a few actually, almost all the parents I know, to be specific (and I'm not a BNP member). One person taking a story to a paper cannot damn everyone who has a negative opinion about Mrs Patterson.

>

> When I say 'you dirty bastards' you know who I'm

> talking to right?

There's no dirt here and the poster isn't racist. It's ridiculous and ambiguous but it's not racist. That this conversation has lots of people accepting the idea that it is racist when it's not kind of implies we live in a postcode of trolls, busy stating, literally, that white is black.

[duchessofdulwich]

the picture on that poster is wierd and inappropriate, however it is not racist. no smoke without fire.....

[Huguenot]

Frankly AnotherPaul, I've not mentioned either the BNP or racism. You did.

I didn't mention white or black either. You did.

I don't need to cover off the posters again either. They are not valid discussion. You stick up pictures of lynch mobs and put them in front any sane person and they won't say 'valid debate'.

They'll say insensitive references to to racist attacks or witch hunts. They'll say that any moderately intelligent person would know that.

They'll say that only a liar tries to pass this off as a joke.

Like I said mate - if you want to bring up issues of black and white, that's entirely up to you. I don't have any public view on you or Moyles in this context.

What I am saying is that trying to pass this poster off as a joke is what nasty little bullies playing psychological games do.

[Dorothy]

The parents and governors who would like to see changes at the school (from what I can gather this mostly amounts to a less rapid turnover of staff, less staff absence, more consistency for the children, better playground supervision and a generally more positive atmosphere - sorry to be vague, its the best I can come up with) have backfired rather badly in trying to achieve this. Again, just from my standpoint as a parent who has been to the school more or less every school day since 2006, the head had indeed endured many months of ill feeling towards her before this tawdry episode.

[Echoes]

My wife happens to be a freelance journalist who sometimes writes for the Daily Mail. We are parents of children at Goodrich. She is not involved in the publication of the story in any way - she has had nothing to do with it at all. The first she and I knew of it was when it appeared in the paper. Those on this forum who think they've guessed who any "mole" might be need to think again. Just thought I'd point this out.

Now, please do go on taking rubbish to each other.

[Huguenot]

Yay, go with the insults Echoes. Magic darts. Shows you have the high ground.

[ginghamgirl]

Posted by Emily Yesterday, 10:53PM

Let's say I heard all about it from relevant sources, long before this story went public

(since removed/edited from comment, as have her other posts)

at odds with:

Echoes Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> My wife happens to be a freelance journalist who

> sometimes writes for the Daily Mail. We are

> parents of children at Goodrich. She is not

> involved in the publication of the story in any

> way - she has had nothing to do with it at all.

> The first she and I knew of it was when it

> appeared in the paper.

Those on this forum who

> think they've guessed who any "mole" might be need

> to think again. Just thought I'd point this out.

>

> Now, please do go on taking rubbish to each other.

[dolcoath]

Look, I'm the Governor involved so I hope people will cut me some slack over this being a "first post". The reason for this post is that I'm finding it more than a little bit alarming that posters seem to be publicly identifying parents at the school as "the source" of the story when there is absolutely no evidence to suggest this. This is incredibly unfair and irresponsible. Ironically, it seems that the forum was the original "leak" of the story and that a locally based journalist has spent the last 6 or 7 weeks doing what I guess journalists do, and that is investigating it. All this thread is doing is increasing the likelihood of the story appearing in the media again, which I don't think anyone wants, and consequently I think it should be allowed to die off.

I'm not someone who would ever take criticism on an anonymous forum, by individuals who do not know me, personally and I am more than happy to respond if people wish to contact me through the board. It's better for everyone if this is kept off the forum.

[AnotherPaul]

I mentioned racism, black and white and referred to the BNP as at the heart of this mess is an accusation of racism which I believe to be motivated by something other than a racist slur.

Because some think that poster is racist the logic seems to run that it's fine to damn everyone who reads it differently. I read it differently because I have direct contact with the school and the individuals concerned. Without some inside knowledge you're supposing to know what has happened and asserting intellectual prowess over truth.

If I had the slightest inkling that the poster was intended to as racist I would be perfectly happy to say so. It was not very well thought through, it was assumed that the authors reading of the image would be the one everyone else took. Clearly that's not the case. God awful mess ensues.

(edited for clarification)

[ginghamgirl]

yes, keeping it off the pages of the Mail would be a better policy for a school governor to adopt. And for the 'friend' so eagerly quoted in the report too for that matter.

dolcoath Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Look, I'm the Governor involved so I hope people

> will cut me some slack over this being a "first

> post". The reason for this post is that I'm

> finding it more than a little bit alarming that

> posters seem to be publicly identifying parents at

> the school as "the source" of the story when there

> is absolutely no evidence to suggest this. This is

> incredibly unfair and irresponsible. Ironically,

> it seems that the forum was the original "leak" of

> the story and that a locally based journalist has

> spent the last 6 or 7 weeks doing what I guess

> journalists do, and that is investigating it. All

> this thread is doing is increasing the likelihood

> of the story appearing in the media again, which I

> don't think anyone wants, and consequently I think

> it should be allowed to die off.

>

> I'm not someone who would ever take criticism on

> an anonymous forum, by individuals who do not know

> me, personally and I am more than happy to respond

> if people wish to contact me through the board.

> It's better for everyone if this is kept off the

> forum.

[Amelie]

What I don't understand is why the Head of Legal Services at LB Southwark didn't put a stop to this business at the outset. There was never any need for LB Southwark to conduct an enquiry. This could have been dealt with in a private meeting.

@James Barber, could you ask the HofLS why he/she didn't intervene? It is his/her job not only to protect the interests of LB Southwark but also to protect LB Southwark from itself.

If I were the Met Police's Borough Commander I would be having pointed conversations with various people on the subject of wasting police time.

I would think the Ombudsman and the District Auditor would be deeply unimpressed too, particularly by the amount of public money that has been spent.

[SimonM]

Southwark's Head of Legal Services has no power to "intervene". He/she can only act or advise if instructed to do so by the appropriate client directorate.

[Echoes]

Y'see, this is what I meant by talking rubbish, Ginghamgirl. My wife is not the same poster as Emily. You appear to think she is. You are wrong. Neither my wife nor I were aware of The Mail [or anyone else] picking up the story before it was published. I've no idea who Emily is or what she's on about. Clear?

Edited to add one other point, just to be absolutely belt and braces: my wife is not the "friend" in the article either. We have no connection with it at all.

[showboat]

But you didn't address the valid point she made which is that your wife has issued plainly contradictory statements, and then gone back and deleted some of them.

You can surely see how that looks a bit dodgy?