Some mornings it simply isn't worth chewing through the straps

Azari

qetu1357 wrote: »

Jokes are supposed to be funny...............

I lolled.

Add humourless to the list of attributes in the above post.

qetu1357

Azari wrote: »

My God, you really are incredibly stupid, aren't you?

Presumably you work for a council as there can't be that many sad, dim, little jobsworths such as yourself - for whom rules are more important than basic common sense - for them to draw on.

And you could start an argument in an empty room.

And Azari you need to get a job.

Have you STILL not got one?

Try the council.

bosseyed

As a deeply interesting aside, I once applied for a job at my local council and had to fill out the longest, dullest, most invasive and involved application form I've ever had the misfortune to bang my head against. After about a week of umming and ahhing and desperately trying to think of many previous situations where I had demonstrated high levels of racial awareness in my decision making or been socially aware with regard to gender equality (as a terrible sexist racist I found this to be a trial), I posted my epic application and sat back to await the inevitable job offer.

After 3 months it arrived back on my doorstep as I hadn't put enough postage on the (massive and weighty) envelope.

True story! Calm down at the back etc.

Edit! And apparently my story was so exciting and so rammed with spelling errors it temporarily broke the forum for me! Winner.

qetu1357

Azari wrote: »

My God, you really are incredibly stupid, aren't you?

Presumably you work for a council as there can't be that many sad, dim, little jobsworths such as yourself - for whom rules are more important than basic common sense - for them to draw on.

And you could start an argument in an empty room.

Good grief.

How would that work?

The policy is admissions will be decided by "common sense".

If you had a job (and no I don't work for a council as I don't work for McDonalds when you said previously I must work for them) you would realise that you cannot run schools admissions on common sense.

You have to define and publish the criteria so people know where they stand.

Leicester did this.

The parents ignored it.

And you don't get it..........

Zedicus

bosseyed wrote: »

Maybe I'm being astoundingly dense ...

Yes, you are.

... Unless, as I say I'm being dense.

Indeed.

Did you read the article carefully?

Did you notice that the council have set up their school's catchment areas so that someone who is a minute's walk away from from one school is obliged to travel 3 miles to another?

What kind of imbecile set's up something so that it is on the edge of its catchment area (unless there is no habitation beyond the edge, of course).

I suppose that there must be people who find this 'usual' and 'acceptable' otherwise, where would councils find the idiots they need to make these brainless decisions.

charlie-chan

I am from Leicester and the catchment areas are really daft there.

My family only lived within the catchment area for the local secondary school and my older sister and I attended there. When it was time for my younger sister to go, she didn't get a place as it was oversubscribed (not surprising as it was the only all girls school in Leicester) so my parents had to appeal. There are still girls attending the school who could easily go to ones in their catchment area but as it is an all girls school, nope, not good enough. They have to attend THAT school as it has a good Ofsted report etc.

The LEA should have reviewed the case more thoroughly instead of saying no due to being slightly over the boundary! It's daft.

Azari

qetu1357 wrote: »

If you had a job (and no I don't work for a council as I don't work for McDonalds when you said previously I must work for them)

Of course not. Sorry. You clearly don't have the mental capacity to flip burgers.

you would realise that you cannot run schools admissions on common sense.

:rotfl:

I have this picture of qetu1357 standing on a chair, waving her handbag in the air and screaming: "No, you idiots, common sense is no way to run things".

(Before the men in white coats come and drag her away to the funny farm.)

You have to define and publish the criteria so people know where they stand.

Of course.

But those criteria should at least have some semblance of sense.

qetu1357

Zedicus wrote: »

Yes, you are.



Indeed.

Did you read the article carefully?

Did you notice that the council have set up their school's catchment areas so that someone who is a minute's walk away from from one school is obliged to travel 3 miles to another?

What kind of imbecile set's up something so that it is on the edge of its catchment area (unless there is no habitation beyond the edge, of course).

I suppose that there must be people who find this 'usual' and 'acceptable' otherwise, where would councils find the idiots they need to make these brainless decisions.

A minutes walk could make a catchment area of (I estimate) of a radius 200 yards.

Do you realise a circle of 200 yards radius could contain hundreds of homes?

This school may have only 30 places.

Some years some schools end up with a catchment area of less than 50 yards (due to special needs, siblings etc having priority)

qetu1357

Azari wrote: »

Of course not. Sorry. You clearly don't have the mental capacity to flip burgers.



:rotfl:

I have this picture of qetu1357 standing on a chair, waving her handbag in the air and screaming: "No, you idiots, common sense is no way to run things".

(Before the men in white coats come and drag her away to the funny farm.)


But those criteria should at least have some semblance of sense.

Azari.

I have a job.

You don't.

Did McDonalds AND the council turn you down?

Rightly to my mind.

bosseyed

Zedicus wrote: »

Yes, you are.



Indeed.

Did you read the article carefully?

Did you notice that the council have set up their school's catchment areas so that someone who is a minute's walk away from from one school is obliged to travel 3 miles to another?

What kind of imbecile set's up something so that it is on the edge of its catchment area (unless there is no habitation beyond the edge, of course).

I suppose that there must be people who find this 'usual' and 'acceptable' otherwise, where would councils find the idiots they need to make these brainless decisions.

Gosh, thanks for clearing that up. Let me just see if I've grasped the basics with my leaking sponge brain.

I did indeed read the article. I did indeed mention that it seems strange to have the catchment line directly along the boundary of the school thus excluding a certain number of people who must live within !!!!ing distance of said educational establishment.

I also pointed out that wherever you draw this line, you will naturally exclude some people who could fall out of bed and be at the school gates, thus forcing them to go elsewhere. I think my point was (I forget now, I've been eating pens, lemon that I am) that you have to draw the line somewhere and that a certain level of illogicallity would be the result. As I said, if the line was moved to include the Coopers, what about the people just beyond the line, who can also see the school but are still excluded? Shall we move the line for them too? And then what about the people behind them?

And so on, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

Whilst I concur that spending ten tons of money telling parents they're outside the catchment area and rejecting various appeals is a little daft when perhaps common sense might dictate that the council says "Shhhh, just this once, as you're within !!!!ing distance of the gates, we'll bend the rules just for you" you have to accept that this would perhaps set an unfair precedent.