Bromet Primary School pupil from Croxley Green thrown off school trip for flouting school's chocolate ban

Watford Observer: Girl, 11, thrown off school trip for flouting school's chocolate ban Girl, 11, thrown off school trip for flouting school's chocolate ban

An 11-year-old girl was sent home in disgrace after eating chocolate on a school trip to the Isle of Wight.

Holli McCann left for an end of term trip with Year 6 classmates from Bromet Primary School in Oxhey Road, Watford, on July 1.

The following day her mother Kerri, of Springfield Close, Croxley Green, received a message to call the hotel urgently.

Fearing Holli had been seriously hurt, Ms McCann called straight away but then concern turned to anger as headteacher Yvonne Graves instructed her to come and collect Holli straight away because she had broken the "charter" by eating confectionary in the hotel and misbehaving on the beach the previous day.

Ms McCann says she asked Mrs Graves to reconsider but she refused, saying if Holli wasn’t picked up she would have to attend all the activities organised but would not be able to participate in any of them.

Ms McCann said: "Once in the car, Holli then told me that her and three friends had had a midnight feast on Monday night. The following day the children were asked to write their letters home.

"Holli’s was read by a member of staff and handed to Mrs Graves, who organised an immediate search of Holli’s room and suitcase.

"This was a search for chocolate but was carried out in such a manner you would have thought they were running an international drug smuggling operation from their hotel room."

In fact Holli’s crime was to bring a Kit Kat, a Fudge bar and a Freddo on the trip to have a midnight feast with three school friends she was sharing a room with.

Ms McCann - who is unable to work due to panic attacks and stress - said she had scrimped and saved for six months to afford the £300 holiday plus £100 worth of equipment and had to borrow another £150 from friends and family and drive through the night to collect her daughter following the incident.

Ms McCann said: "I am still in shock, I complained to the head but she still hasn’t contacted me after making me go all the way to the Isle of Wight which ended up costing me an absolute fortune.

"Holli said she was really upset because they emptied her toiletry bag into the sink and pulled out the lining in her suitcase.

"She was very upset for a few days after coming back."

Ms McCann - who withdrew Holli from the school for the rest of her final term - made a formal complaint to the school and the governors and has also written to education secretary Michael Gove.

In a letter to Mrs Graves, she said: "What Holli did was wrong but your own behaviour and handling of the situation was disgraceful.

"I am astonished at the way you behaved and have decided that Holli will not be returning to Bromet for obvious reasons."

Watford Observer:

Holli was 'very upset for a few days' after being sent home.

Nobody at the school was willing to comment on the incident but a Hertfordshire County Council spokesman said: "Before the Year 6 trip to the Isle of Wight, parents and pupils were asked to sign a behaviour charter which clearly outlines how pupils should behave during the trip.

"This is to ensure that everyone can have a safe and enjoyable holiday. It was made clear that breaking any of the rules within the charter would result in parents being asked to take their child home, as was the case with this pupil."

Comments (116)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:11pm Thu 18 Jul 13

DFL says...

Why have a ban on chocolate? I could understand something like smashing hotel windows and being an unruly little brat but chocolate? Come on.
Why have a ban on chocolate? I could understand something like smashing hotel windows and being an unruly little brat but chocolate? Come on. DFL

6:28pm Thu 18 Jul 13

Retlas says...

Well, teachers can ban anything.

They're banning going to work for a day in the autumn.

A good example to set for the children in their care.

Do as we say and everything will be fine but don't eat chocolate!!
Well, teachers can ban anything. They're banning going to work for a day in the autumn. A good example to set for the children in their care. Do as we say and everything will be fine but don't eat chocolate!! Retlas

8:08pm Thu 18 Jul 13

Anyvacancies says...

The headteacher provides very good leadership. She works well with other leaders and the governing body to raise standards, and to take swift action to deal with areas for improvement. Last Ofsted report. If you obey the rules no problem.
The headteacher provides very good leadership. She works well with other leaders and the governing body to raise standards, and to take swift action to deal with areas for improvement. Last Ofsted report. If you obey the rules no problem. Anyvacancies

8:48pm Thu 18 Jul 13

Hikari Warrior says...

Mmmmm eating chocolate? Wonder what the 'misbehaving on the beach' was about then?

More to this than meets the eye, me thinks....
Mmmmm eating chocolate? Wonder what the 'misbehaving on the beach' was about then? More to this than meets the eye, me thinks.... Hikari Warrior

8:52pm Thu 18 Jul 13

kingofpop says...

She may well provide good leadership, but sounds like she belongs in 1930's Germany!!! Who ever heard of abit of chocolate being banned in the first place for a school trip? Pretty ridiculous in the first place, i wonder if laughing and having fun was allowed? The search seemed rather over the top. I think the school should reimpurse all the money spent back to the family.
Oh speaking of rules anyvacancies, if a child ws drowning in a lake but there was a sign saying no swimming, would you and the headteacher stand and watch??? Rules are rules after all!!!!
She may well provide good leadership, but sounds like she belongs in 1930's Germany!!! Who ever heard of abit of chocolate being banned in the first place for a school trip? Pretty ridiculous in the first place, i wonder if laughing and having fun was allowed? The search seemed rather over the top. I think the school should reimpurse all the money spent back to the family. Oh speaking of rules anyvacancies, if a child ws drowning in a lake but there was a sign saying no swimming, would you and the headteacher stand and watch??? Rules are rules after all!!!! kingofpop

9:23pm Thu 18 Jul 13

MarsLander says...

Ridiculous if true.

Let's hope the head is not as stupid as is being made out.
Ridiculous if true. Let's hope the head is not as stupid as is being made out. MarsLander

9:40pm Thu 18 Jul 13

LSC says...

There MUST be more to this than meets the eye, on so many levels.
Reading someone else's mail is wrong without the proper authority of law, as is searching personal belongings.
They are teachers, not Customs and Excise.

But part of me also wonders how someone unable to work due to panic attacks and stress, and is therefore presumably on benefits, was capable of not owning and maintaining a car, but driving through the night to the Isle of Wight, booking a ferry each way then driving all the way back, contacting the press and finding out how to contact the Education Secretary.

I have had dozens of employees completely incapable of knowing where to start with any of that and she did it all with no prior planning.

Perhaps she is cured and it's time to go back to some sort of employment. She sounds very capable to me.
There MUST be more to this than meets the eye, on so many levels. Reading someone else's mail is wrong without the proper authority of law, as is searching personal belongings. They are teachers, not Customs and Excise. But part of me also wonders how someone unable to work due to panic attacks and stress, and is therefore presumably on benefits, was capable of not owning and maintaining a car, but driving through the night to the Isle of Wight, booking a ferry each way then driving all the way back, contacting the press and finding out how to contact the Education Secretary. I have had dozens of employees completely incapable of knowing where to start with any of that and she did it all with no prior planning. Perhaps she is cured and it's time to go back to some sort of employment. She sounds very capable to me. LSC

9:58pm Thu 18 Jul 13

Popeonarope says...

Hardly the crime of the century, must be more to it than that. If not, draconian to say the least.
Hardly the crime of the century, must be more to it than that. If not, draconian to say the least. Popeonarope

11:05pm Thu 18 Jul 13

Retlas says...

Sieg Heil.
Sieg Heil. Retlas

8:14am Fri 19 Jul 13

Solail777 says...

Head teacher was totally right. Think about it this way, if she had misbehaved on the beach and nothing was done, she could of drowned. And what if her and the other children choked on all the chocolate they were eating when they should of been asleep. Or another child had an allergy?? This would of caused a hell of a lot more uproar. She is teaching her child to not listen authority, which is clearly why she broke the rules in the first place. Good on the head teacher!
Head teacher was totally right. Think about it this way, if she had misbehaved on the beach and nothing was done, she could of drowned. And what if her and the other children choked on all the chocolate they were eating when they should of been asleep. Or another child had an allergy?? This would of caused a hell of a lot more uproar. She is teaching her child to not listen authority, which is clearly why she broke the rules in the first place. Good on the head teacher! Solail777

8:27am Fri 19 Jul 13

garston tony says...

There is mention of other children taking part in this midnight feast but no mention of them being sent home, I think the bit about mis behaving on the beach has a lot more to do with what happened with the chocolate incident possibly just being the last straw. If we knew more about the other incidents it probably would shed a totally different light on the matter.

Taking school kids on a trip, expecially one involving a few nights away with children of primary school age is a serious undertaking and discipline is vital (its a cliche but true) for the safety and enjoyment of the whole group.
There is mention of other children taking part in this midnight feast but no mention of them being sent home, I think the bit about mis behaving on the beach has a lot more to do with what happened with the chocolate incident possibly just being the last straw. If we knew more about the other incidents it probably would shed a totally different light on the matter. Taking school kids on a trip, expecially one involving a few nights away with children of primary school age is a serious undertaking and discipline is vital (its a cliche but true) for the safety and enjoyment of the whole group. garston tony

8:35am Fri 19 Jul 13

garston tony says...

As to reading her letter I can think of many reasons why a teacher may find themselves doing that, maybe the child asked for help to spell a word or the task was for the kids to write letters home which would then be read out to everyone before being posted or something along those lines. I'd also not be suprised if the manner the search was carried out was not exagerated too, this is after all a kid who has caused trouble on two occassions who knows they are in trouble with the school and who knows their mum has had to go to great lengths to pick her up. Exagerating to deflect attention from themselves is going to be natural.

If I was a parent i'd be peeved too about this, but with my child for not behaving. I also wonder if the mum was aware that her daughter was taking this chocolate on the trip, am I being naive to think she could not have obtained and taken those treats without her mothers knowledge?

But as is often the case we have a parent who does not wish to accept their child is in the wrong and a paper who is happy to assist her in attacking the school. All this knowing that due to the complaint made the school would not be able to respond which makes the attack all the worse as far as im concerned. If the mother truly thinks the school was in the wrong then she did the right thing complaining to the education authorities and governors, going to the press was the wrong thing to do before the complaint had been dealt with. This has gone from a possible genuine complaint to a smear campaign where the school is obliged not to respond
As to reading her letter I can think of many reasons why a teacher may find themselves doing that, maybe the child asked for help to spell a word or the task was for the kids to write letters home which would then be read out to everyone before being posted or something along those lines. I'd also not be suprised if the manner the search was carried out was not exagerated too, this is after all a kid who has caused trouble on two occassions who knows they are in trouble with the school and who knows their mum has had to go to great lengths to pick her up. Exagerating to deflect attention from themselves is going to be natural. If I was a parent i'd be peeved too about this, but with my child for not behaving. I also wonder if the mum was aware that her daughter was taking this chocolate on the trip, am I being naive to think she could not have obtained and taken those treats without her mothers knowledge? But as is often the case we have a parent who does not wish to accept their child is in the wrong and a paper who is happy to assist her in attacking the school. All this knowing that due to the complaint made the school would not be able to respond which makes the attack all the worse as far as im concerned. If the mother truly thinks the school was in the wrong then she did the right thing complaining to the education authorities and governors, going to the press was the wrong thing to do before the complaint had been dealt with. This has gone from a possible genuine complaint to a smear campaign where the school is obliged not to respond garston tony

8:36am Fri 19 Jul 13

MarsLander says...

Was the Head cross-eyed?

She clearly could not control her pupils.

In all seriousness, it should not be beyond the abilities of the teachers present to control discipline and keep the girl on the holiday.

I know how much children enjoy these holidays and how much some families sacrifice to pay for the holiday, so sending a child home should be the very last resort for serious misdemeanours. Eating chocolate is not a serious misdemeanour.

I actually find this quite disturbing and the girl will not only have had "the best holiday ever" cut short, but will have been humiliated in front of all her friends.

I think the Head has some serious soul-searching to do. This should be fully investigated by an independent panel (not governors) and if the head is found wanting, should be reprimanded.
Was the Head cross-eyed? She clearly could not control her pupils. In all seriousness, it should not be beyond the abilities of the teachers present to control discipline and keep the girl on the holiday. I know how much children enjoy these holidays and how much some families sacrifice to pay for the holiday, so sending a child home should be the very last resort for serious misdemeanours. Eating chocolate is not a serious misdemeanour. I actually find this quite disturbing and the girl will not only have had "the best holiday ever" cut short, but will have been humiliated in front of all her friends. I think the Head has some serious soul-searching to do. This should be fully investigated by an independent panel (not governors) and if the head is found wanting, should be reprimanded. MarsLander

9:43am Fri 19 Jul 13

CaptainPC says...

No one on here knows the full story, but let's say she was sent home for eating chocolate.

It does seem harsh in some ways but if it was made clear that chocolate was banned and those were the rules then, I think, fair enough.

If the school has rules and enforces them then fair play, there more to learning than classroom lectures.
No one on here knows the full story, but let's say she was sent home for eating chocolate. It does seem harsh in some ways but if it was made clear that chocolate was banned and those were the rules then, I think, fair enough. If the school has rules and enforces them then fair play, there more to learning than classroom lectures. CaptainPC

10:05am Fri 19 Jul 13

garston tony says...

MarsLander wrote:
Was the Head cross-eyed? She clearly could not control her pupils. In all seriousness, it should not be beyond the abilities of the teachers present to control discipline and keep the girl on the holiday. I know how much children enjoy these holidays and how much some families sacrifice to pay for the holiday, so sending a child home should be the very last resort for serious misdemeanours. Eating chocolate is not a serious misdemeanour. I actually find this quite disturbing and the girl will not only have had "the best holiday ever" cut short, but will have been humiliated in front of all her friends. I think the Head has some serious soul-searching to do. This should be fully investigated by an independent panel (not governors) and if the head is found wanting, should be reprimanded.
Were you there? Because you're making some quite specific allegations about the head teachers ability and the situation.

Seeing as how some parents fail to control their own offspring its not a great leap to see how its not necessarily that easy to control a whole group of kids (especially in this day and age where so many parents dont actually parent and blame everyone else when their kids mis behave). Thats precisely why rules and enforcing them is necessary. And i'm sure sending the child home, especially knowing the effort needed for the parent to come collect her, would have been the last resort - you're totally ignoring the point that this child was involved in some poor behaviour the day before which the mother conveniently has ignored too (i'd point out again that only one of the 4 kids involved in eating chocolate was sent home, this suggests that the behaviour the day before was a big factor in the decision to send this child home)

You're right though, most parents do have to make sacrifices and struggle to pay for trips like this. If I was a parent I would be glad that the school took steps to remove a disruptive pupil who was potentially spoiling the experience for everyone else and therefore ensuring that the sacrifices I made to pay for the trip where not wasted.
[quote][p][bold]MarsLander[/bold] wrote: Was the Head cross-eyed? She clearly could not control her pupils. In all seriousness, it should not be beyond the abilities of the teachers present to control discipline and keep the girl on the holiday. I know how much children enjoy these holidays and how much some families sacrifice to pay for the holiday, so sending a child home should be the very last resort for serious misdemeanours. Eating chocolate is not a serious misdemeanour. I actually find this quite disturbing and the girl will not only have had "the best holiday ever" cut short, but will have been humiliated in front of all her friends. I think the Head has some serious soul-searching to do. This should be fully investigated by an independent panel (not governors) and if the head is found wanting, should be reprimanded.[/p][/quote]Were you there? Because you're making some quite specific allegations about the head teachers ability and the situation. Seeing as how some parents fail to control their own offspring its not a great leap to see how its not necessarily that easy to control a whole group of kids (especially in this day and age where so many parents dont actually parent and blame everyone else when their kids mis behave). Thats precisely why rules and enforcing them is necessary. And i'm sure sending the child home, especially knowing the effort needed for the parent to come collect her, would have been the last resort - you're totally ignoring the point that this child was involved in some poor behaviour the day before which the mother conveniently has ignored too (i'd point out again that only one of the 4 kids involved in eating chocolate was sent home, this suggests that the behaviour the day before was a big factor in the decision to send this child home) You're right though, most parents do have to make sacrifices and struggle to pay for trips like this. If I was a parent I would be glad that the school took steps to remove a disruptive pupil who was potentially spoiling the experience for everyone else and therefore ensuring that the sacrifices I made to pay for the trip where not wasted. garston tony

10:34am Fri 19 Jul 13

TRT says...

Hang on... is that nail varnish? On an 11-year old?
Hang on... is that nail varnish? On an 11-year old? TRT

11:51am Fri 19 Jul 13

Croxleygirl says...

This girl is known in Croxley..Not her fault she's a kid but come on Holly's Mum sort it.. you are turning her in to a social outcast
This girl is known in Croxley..Not her fault she's a kid but come on Holly's Mum sort it.. you are turning her in to a social outcast Croxleygirl

12:10pm Fri 19 Jul 13

Hornets number 12 fan says...

TRT wrote:
Hang on... is that nail varnish? On an 11-year old?
God No! nail varnish on an 11 year old next they'll be having sex at 13! Oh they have!
[quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Hang on... is that nail varnish? On an 11-year old?[/p][/quote]God No! nail varnish on an 11 year old next they'll be having sex at 13! Oh they have! Hornets number 12 fan

12:15pm Fri 19 Jul 13

TRT says...

Hornets number 12 fan wrote:
TRT wrote:
Hang on... is that nail varnish? On an 11-year old?
God No! nail varnish on an 11 year old next they'll be having sex at 13! Oh they have!
And if a 13 year old were caught shagging on a school trip, I'd expect the parents to be called and the pupils involved taken home.

I may be an old **** or behind the times or whatever, but at 11, my daughter wasn't allowed to wear nail varnish or make up, or get her ears pierced etc. So I'm wondering if we have a boundary issue here. Mind you, on the flip side I'm sure I allowed her to do things that some people would say they wouldn't allow theirs to do.
[quote][p][bold]Hornets number 12 fan[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]TRT[/bold] wrote: Hang on... is that nail varnish? On an 11-year old?[/p][/quote]God No! nail varnish on an 11 year old next they'll be having sex at 13! Oh they have![/p][/quote]And if a 13 year old were caught shagging on a school trip, I'd expect the parents to be called and the pupils involved taken home. I may be an old **** or behind the times or whatever, but at 11, my daughter wasn't allowed to wear nail varnish or make up, or get her ears pierced etc. So I'm wondering if we have a boundary issue here. Mind you, on the flip side I'm sure I allowed her to do things that some people would say they wouldn't allow theirs to do. TRT

12:40pm Fri 19 Jul 13

angryangryangry says...

"to ensure that everyone can have a safe and enjoyable holiday" - was she not trying to have an enjoyable holiday by eating a bit of chocolate with her mates?

OK,we do not know what the "naughtiness" on the beach involved, but if it was that bad then surely they would not have waited for "chocolategate" to erupt before sending her home! Think it seems on face value to be very harsh. Even the fact that they were not allowed chocolate seems harsh. Were they prisoners or school children? Prisoners would be allowed to have it so why not our good children!?!?
"to ensure that everyone can have a safe and enjoyable holiday" - was she not trying to have an enjoyable holiday by eating a bit of chocolate with her mates? OK,we do not know what the "naughtiness" on the beach involved, but if it was that bad then surely they would not have waited for "chocolategate" to erupt before sending her home! Think it seems on face value to be very harsh. Even the fact that they were not allowed chocolate seems harsh. Were they prisoners or school children? Prisoners would be allowed to have it so why not our good children!?!? angryangryangry

1:50pm Fri 19 Jul 13

garston tony says...

Croxleygirl, by 'this girl is known' do you mean she has a reputation due to poor behaviour?

TRT times have changed and kids are increasingly being pushed into acting/looking/behav
ing like adults at younger and younger ages. Nail varnish at 11 is quite mild really compared to a lot of what goes on. I guess its always been part of childhood where kids look to their parents and adults and want to copy them, but there is a difference between a kid borrowing their mums make up when shes not looking and splashing it on and there being an actual range of kids make up. As to some of the clothing..... What an old **** I am!

Angryangry, maybe what happened on the beach wasnt bad enough to warrant getting sent home in itself however I would imagine she would have been talked to about her behaviour on the trip. As we know she then broke the rules again and its probably the two combined that led to her being sent home. I think that is fair enough, if she was warned and ignored it then she's only herself to blame. The reasons why chocolate was banned is almost irrelevant, this kid AND her mother agreed to abide by the rules and she didnt

The rights and wrongs of the decision to send the kid home its still wrong in my book to bring this to the press whilst the complaint is being dealt with as the school obviously can not respond to the matter. This is an attack against a party that can not currently defend itself in which it seems we are meant to simply believe the mothers point of view and join in (and some have unthinkingly happily done so). There is clearly far more to it than what she is telling us and the bit that has been witheld possibly paints a totally different picture.
Croxleygirl, by 'this girl is known' do you mean she has a reputation due to poor behaviour? TRT times have changed and kids are increasingly being pushed into acting/looking/behav ing like adults at younger and younger ages. Nail varnish at 11 is quite mild really compared to a lot of what goes on. I guess its always been part of childhood where kids look to their parents and adults and want to copy them, but there is a difference between a kid borrowing their mums make up when shes not looking and splashing it on and there being an actual range of kids make up. As to some of the clothing..... What an old **** I am! Angryangry, maybe what happened on the beach wasnt bad enough to warrant getting sent home in itself however I would imagine she would have been talked to about her behaviour on the trip. As we know she then broke the rules again and its probably the two combined that led to her being sent home. I think that is fair enough, if she was warned and ignored it then she's only herself to blame. The reasons why chocolate was banned is almost irrelevant, this kid AND her mother agreed to abide by the rules and she didnt The rights and wrongs of the decision to send the kid home its still wrong in my book to bring this to the press whilst the complaint is being dealt with as the school obviously can not respond to the matter. This is an attack against a party that can not currently defend itself in which it seems we are meant to simply believe the mothers point of view and join in (and some have unthinkingly happily done so). There is clearly far more to it than what she is telling us and the bit that has been witheld possibly paints a totally different picture. garston tony

3:12pm Fri 19 Jul 13

Andrew1963 says...

Personally, i know nothing about this, but think these sort of stories are the worst example of people going around name calling. why on earth the parents of a child who is moving on to secondary school wanted to air all this in public is beyond me.Regardless of the facts the first priority should be avoiding the opportunities for strangers to make judgements about your child. Take it up with the school/governores, etc - but keep it out if the press.
Personally, i know nothing about this, but think these sort of stories are the worst example of people going around name calling. why on earth the parents of a child who is moving on to secondary school wanted to air all this in public is beyond me.Regardless of the facts the first priority should be avoiding the opportunities for strangers to make judgements about your child. Take it up with the school/governores, etc - but keep it out if the press. Andrew1963

5:37pm Fri 19 Jul 13

Hand of Destiny says...

My child was on this trip. Lets put it this way, it was no loss to the class. Taxi for Holli!
My child was on this trip. Lets put it this way, it was no loss to the class. Taxi for Holli! Hand of Destiny

6:53pm Fri 19 Jul 13

notquitethewholestory says...

Hand of Destiny wrote:
My child was on this trip. Lets put it this way, it was no loss to the class. Taxi for Holli!
My child was also on this trip and believe me, if anyone was going to 'push the boundaries' it was going to be Holli. From all the years my child has been in the same classes as her I can assure you she is far from the wronged angel she appears in this photo. I'm really surprised the Watford Observer printed this story.
[quote][p][bold]Hand of Destiny[/bold] wrote: My child was on this trip. Lets put it this way, it was no loss to the class. Taxi for Holli![/p][/quote]My child was also on this trip and believe me, if anyone was going to 'push the boundaries' it was going to be Holli. From all the years my child has been in the same classes as her I can assure you she is far from the wronged angel she appears in this photo. I'm really surprised the Watford Observer printed this story. notquitethewholestory

7:45pm Fri 19 Jul 13

malkj62 says...

Firstly, who gave the teachers the right to read private letters home? This teacher should face a disciplinary hearing at the very least,if not dismissal.

Who made the rule that chocolate was banned from a KIDS school trip? This one is an idiot.

I think they should give back all the money the parent paid for this trip.As no rule was broken,Just kids eating chocolate.
Firstly, who gave the teachers the right to read private letters home? This teacher should face a disciplinary hearing at the very least,if not dismissal. Who made the rule that chocolate was banned from a KIDS school trip? This one is an idiot. I think they should give back all the money the parent paid for this trip.As no rule was broken,Just kids eating chocolate. malkj62

8:14pm Fri 19 Jul 13

DrFreddo says...

As a Freddo, I find this whole ordeal extremely offensive!
The kind of prejudice that has been thrust onto my fellow confectionaries disgusts and appals me.
I feel that someone in such a high position of power and influence over our youth would have more insight into how detrimental blatant discrimination can be in society!
While this child may be conveyed as a bad creme egg, it doesn't excuse the fact that innocent chocolate bars are paying the price!
I'd just like to say Mrs Graves, if you continue in this manner, on behalf of my brethren I will find you and force feed you toblerone until you can eat no
More.

Sincerely,
A Disgruntled Freddo
As a Freddo, I find this whole ordeal extremely offensive! The kind of prejudice that has been thrust onto my fellow confectionaries disgusts and appals me. I feel that someone in such a high position of power and influence over our youth would have more insight into how detrimental blatant discrimination can be in society! While this child may be conveyed as a bad creme egg, it doesn't excuse the fact that innocent chocolate bars are paying the price! I'd just like to say Mrs Graves, if you continue in this manner, on behalf of my brethren I will find you and force feed you toblerone until you can eat no More. Sincerely, A Disgruntled Freddo DrFreddo

8:17pm Fri 19 Jul 13

Taximan says...

Hitler died 1945 sounds like he's come back as the head of bromit school.
Hitler died 1945 sounds like he's come back as the head of bromit school. Taximan

8:18pm Fri 19 Jul 13

Stumbles says...

Despicable. Mrs Graves you should be ashamed. I can describe you only as a borderline Chocolate fascist. My granddad fought two world wars so that Freddos and Dairy Milks could live in a world free from persecution and prejudice. Your treating Flakes and Creme Eggs as second class citizens, and I for one would not want someone like you teaching my children with your ignorant choclatist view on the world.
Despicable. Mrs Graves you should be ashamed. I can describe you only as a borderline Chocolate fascist. My granddad fought two world wars so that Freddos and Dairy Milks could live in a world free from persecution and prejudice. Your treating Flakes and Creme Eggs as second class citizens, and I for one would not want someone like you teaching my children with your ignorant choclatist view on the world. Stumbles

8:39pm Fri 19 Jul 13

Candy'sdandy says...

Does nobody really understand how 'rules' are imposed on trips like this? A risk assessment on children taking chocolate which they could eat unobserved and potentially share with others would identify the risk of a child with, for example, a nut allergy possibly suffering serious adverse effects. Imagine the fuss most of the previous commenters would make then...
Does nobody really understand how 'rules' are imposed on trips like this? A risk assessment on children taking chocolate which they could eat unobserved and potentially share with others would identify the risk of a child with, for example, a nut allergy possibly suffering serious adverse effects. Imagine the fuss most of the previous commenters would make then... Candy'sdandy

9:15pm Fri 19 Jul 13

mummy_1 says...

We are all protective of our children and Ms McCann has the right to be too.
Whether it was the chocolate incident or a build-up of things, the school could have handled it better
My opinion is that these days there are far too many 'parents' from the nearby community working at the same schools where their children attend. This lends itself to local disputes, prejudices, tittle- tattle and local hearsay all determining how staff and their peers treat them. The majority of parent employees in school do not have any child's interest at heart except their own. They are neither qualified or driven to do the work they are employed to do and serve only to spread local and community gossip into and out if the school.
I would put a small amount of money that 'shoes&sunshine (as well as a parent to a child in year 6) is either a TA, dinner lady or heavily involved with school or the PTA. If you are, then shame on you. If you are not (sorry) but shame on you as a parent for spitting such venom at towards an 11-year-old child.
Tell you what I truly believe, the Hollie probably could feel the animosity from her peers and bought the goodies to make friends/bargaining because I am sure most parents had already expressed a wish for their child NOT to share a room with Hollie and this was the school’s heavy handed way of keeping the majority of parents happy by simply sending Hollie home.
Please respond to the 2 paragraphs above, as I am sure I may be right on a lot of what I have said.
If the WO is wrong for covering the story, you are worse for talking about an 11 year old child and her family in such a slanderous and bitter manner.
Ms McCann it probably wasn’t a great move going to the press but regardless of what Hollie did or did not do, she doesn’t deserve the poison some are spouting.
The Best of Luck to Holli in Y7.
We are all protective of our children and Ms McCann has the right to be too. Whether it was the chocolate incident or a build-up of things, the school could have handled it better My opinion is that these days there are far too many 'parents' from the nearby community working at the same schools where their children attend. This lends itself to local disputes, prejudices, tittle- tattle and local hearsay all determining how staff and their peers treat them. The majority of parent employees in school do not have any child's interest at heart except their own. They are neither qualified or driven to do the work they are employed to do and serve only to spread local and community gossip into and out if the school. I would put a small amount of money that 'shoes&sunshine (as well as a parent to a child in year 6) is either a TA, dinner lady or heavily involved with school or the PTA. If you are, then shame on you. If you are not (sorry) but shame on you as a parent for spitting such venom at towards an 11-year-old child. Tell you what I truly believe, the Hollie probably could feel the animosity from her peers and bought the goodies to make friends/bargaining because I am sure most parents had already expressed a wish for their child NOT to share a room with Hollie and this was the school’s heavy handed way of keeping the majority of parents happy by simply sending Hollie home. Please respond to the 2 paragraphs above, as I am sure I may be right on a lot of what I have said. If the WO is wrong for covering the story, you are worse for talking about an 11 year old child and her family in such a slanderous and bitter manner. Ms McCann it probably wasn’t a great move going to the press but regardless of what Hollie did or did not do, she doesn’t deserve the poison some are spouting. The Best of Luck to Holli in Y7. mummy_1

9:57pm Fri 19 Jul 13

pepsiman says...

Shes lucky - at the end of last week, a 20-year-old woman, Kepara Leniata, was doused in gasoline and burned at the stake for witchcraft in Papua New Guinea.
Shes lucky - at the end of last week, a 20-year-old woman, Kepara Leniata, was doused in gasoline and burned at the stake for witchcraft in Papua New Guinea. pepsiman

10:25pm Fri 19 Jul 13

Croxleygirl says...

Garston Tony...she was brought to my attention at the age of 8 for her foul language in the recreation park. Also for threatening other children and calling her older brother to deal with them when she was challenged back.
Garston Tony...she was brought to my attention at the age of 8 for her foul language in the recreation park. Also for threatening other children and calling her older brother to deal with them when she was challenged back. Croxleygirl

11:16pm Fri 19 Jul 13

Hand of Destiny says...

'Ms McCann - who is unable to work due to panic attacks and stress'. Translated into 'Ms McCann - who refuses to work because the state provides all her needs in benefits.' What an idle hump. Enjoy your 15 minutes of fame at the expense of your children's notoriety.
'Ms McCann - who is unable to work due to panic attacks and stress'. Translated into 'Ms McCann - who refuses to work because the state provides all her needs in benefits.' What an idle hump. Enjoy your 15 minutes of fame at the expense of your children's notoriety. Hand of Destiny

11:22pm Fri 19 Jul 13

mummy_1 says...

Croxleygirl wrote:
Garston Tony...she was brought to my attention at the age of 8 for her foul language in the recreation park. Also for threatening other children and calling her older brother to deal with them when she was challenged back.
Croxleygirl you make a point but she is now 11 and not 8.

I still believe that she brought the ‘contraband’ to ingratiate herself with her peers because she is well aware what others think about her.

As a mother of 3 and all of mine have done year 6 IOW with their jnr, schools, I have NEVER been asked to sign a charter! Was that the first time that Bromet have introduced the this document. Are there any Bromet parents; brave enough to admit they also gave their kids snacks to take?
And shoes&sunshine quotes
' my child was shocked that holly's mum would give holly that much food to take and would break the rules like that' -
Can she with hand on heart say that her daughter did not take 1 single snack or drink from home into the hotel!!! I find that really hard to believe!!! The words ‘that much’ suggest she too had snacks and hey no one died!
Over to you shoes&sunshine’!
[quote][p][bold]Croxleygirl[/bold] wrote: Garston Tony...she was brought to my attention at the age of 8 for her foul language in the recreation park. Also for threatening other children and calling her older brother to deal with them when she was challenged back.[/p][/quote]Croxleygirl you make a point but she is now 11 and not 8. I still believe that she brought the ‘contraband’ to ingratiate herself with her peers because she is well aware what others think about her. As a mother of 3 and all of mine have done year 6 IOW with their jnr, schools, I have NEVER been asked to sign a charter! Was that the first time that Bromet have introduced the this document. Are there any Bromet parents; brave enough to admit they also gave their kids snacks to take? And shoes&sunshine quotes ' my child was shocked that holly's mum would give holly that much food to take and would break the rules like that' - Can she with hand on heart say that her daughter did not take 1 single snack or drink from home into the hotel!!! I find that really hard to believe!!! The words ‘that much’ suggest she too had snacks and hey no one died! Over to you shoes&sunshine’! mummy_1

12:19am Sat 20 Jul 13

notquitethewholestory says...

mummy_1 wrote:
Croxleygirl wrote:
Garston Tony...she was brought to my attention at the age of 8 for her foul language in the recreation park. Also for threatening other children and calling her older brother to deal with them when she was challenged back.
Croxleygirl you make a point but she is now 11 and not 8.

I still believe that she brought the ‘contraband’ to ingratiate herself with her peers because she is well aware what others think about her.

As a mother of 3 and all of mine have done year 6 IOW with their jnr, schools, I have NEVER been asked to sign a charter! Was that the first time that Bromet have introduced the this document. Are there any Bromet parents; brave enough to admit they also gave their kids snacks to take?
And shoes&sunshine quotes
' my child was shocked that holly's mum would give holly that much food to take and would break the rules like that' -
Can she with hand on heart say that her daughter did not take 1 single snack or drink from home into the hotel!!! I find that really hard to believe!!! The words ‘that much’ suggest she too had snacks and hey no one died!
Over to you shoes&sunshine
!
I don't know who shoesandsunshine is but I share her views. mummy_1, both shoesandsunshine and I have had experience of Holli and her mother through our 6 years at Bromet so we know exactly what we're talking about. I too was scared to voice an opinion due to the fear of a violent backlash from Holli's mother - believe me, it has already happened in full view of other parents and children. I can assure you I don't work at Bromet and am not on the PTA or a Governor - my views are based on the facts of what I have witnessed over the years.
[quote][p][bold]mummy_1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Croxleygirl[/bold] wrote: Garston Tony...she was brought to my attention at the age of 8 for her foul language in the recreation park. Also for threatening other children and calling her older brother to deal with them when she was challenged back.[/p][/quote]Croxleygirl you make a point but she is now 11 and not 8. I still believe that she brought the ‘contraband’ to ingratiate herself with her peers because she is well aware what others think about her. As a mother of 3 and all of mine have done year 6 IOW with their jnr, schools, I have NEVER been asked to sign a charter! Was that the first time that Bromet have introduced the this document. Are there any Bromet parents; brave enough to admit they also gave their kids snacks to take? And shoes&sunshine quotes ' my child was shocked that holly's mum would give holly that much food to take and would break the rules like that' - Can she with hand on heart say that her daughter did not take 1 single snack or drink from home into the hotel!!! I find that really hard to believe!!! The words ‘that much’ suggest she too had snacks and hey no one died! Over to you shoes&sunshine ![/p][/quote]I don't know who shoesandsunshine is but I share her views. mummy_1, both shoesandsunshine and I have had experience of Holli and her mother through our 6 years at Bromet so we know exactly what we're talking about. I too was scared to voice an opinion due to the fear of a violent backlash from Holli's mother - believe me, it has already happened in full view of other parents and children. I can assure you I don't work at Bromet and am not on the PTA or a Governor - my views are based on the facts of what I have witnessed over the years. notquitethewholestory

12:37am Sat 20 Jul 13

LSC says...

"I too was scared to voice an opinion due to the fear of a violent backlash from Holli's mother - believe me, it has already happened in full view of other parents and children."

That'll be the stress and panic attacks.
You should be more sympathetic and give her your taxes.
She has a car to run and choccies to buy. Neither come cheap.
"I too was scared to voice an opinion due to the fear of a violent backlash from Holli's mother - believe me, it has already happened in full view of other parents and children." That'll be the stress and panic attacks. You should be more sympathetic and give her your taxes. She has a car to run and choccies to buy. Neither come cheap. LSC

12:55am Sat 20 Jul 13

mummy_1 says...

notquitethewholestor
y
wrote:
mummy_1 wrote:
Croxleygirl wrote:
Garston Tony...she was brought to my attention at the age of 8 for her foul language in the recreation park. Also for threatening other children and calling her older brother to deal with them when she was challenged back.
Croxleygirl you make a point but she is now 11 and not 8.

I still believe that she brought the ‘contraband’ to ingratiate herself with her peers because she is well aware what others think about her.

As a mother of 3 and all of mine have done year 6 IOW with their jnr, schools, I have NEVER been asked to sign a charter! Was that the first time that Bromet have introduced the this document. Are there any Bromet parents; brave enough to admit they also gave their kids snacks to take?
And shoes&sunshine quotes
' my child was shocked that holly's mum would give holly that much food to take and would break the rules like that' -
Can she with hand on heart say that her daughter did not take 1 single snack or drink from home into the hotel!!! I find that really hard to believe!!! The words ‘that much’ suggest she too had snacks and hey no one died!
Over to you shoes&sunshine

�!
I don't know who shoesandsunshine is but I share her views. mummy_1, both shoesandsunshine and I have had experience of Holli and her mother through our 6 years at Bromet so we know exactly what we're talking about. I too was scared to voice an opinion due to the fear of a violent backlash from Holli's mother - believe me, it has already happened in full view of other parents and children. I can assure you I don't work at Bromet and am not on the PTA or a Governor - my views are based on the facts of what I have witnessed over the years.
I appreciate you comments and I am fully aware that we have not got the whole story...but I feel it was too heavy handed and stinks off retribution.

Was this the first time the children and parents had to sign the Charter?

Did your child take snacks? Honest answer?
[quote][p][bold]notquitethewholestor y[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mummy_1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Croxleygirl[/bold] wrote: Garston Tony...she was brought to my attention at the age of 8 for her foul language in the recreation park. Also for threatening other children and calling her older brother to deal with them when she was challenged back.[/p][/quote]Croxleygirl you make a point but she is now 11 and not 8. I still believe that she brought the ‘contraband’ to ingratiate herself with her peers because she is well aware what others think about her. As a mother of 3 and all of mine have done year 6 IOW with their jnr, schools, I have NEVER been asked to sign a charter! Was that the first time that Bromet have introduced the this document. Are there any Bromet parents; brave enough to admit they also gave their kids snacks to take? And shoes&sunshine quotes ' my child was shocked that holly's mum would give holly that much food to take and would break the rules like that' - Can she with hand on heart say that her daughter did not take 1 single snack or drink from home into the hotel!!! I find that really hard to believe!!! The words ‘that much’ suggest she too had snacks and hey no one died! Over to you shoes&sunshine �![/p][/quote]I don't know who shoesandsunshine is but I share her views. mummy_1, both shoesandsunshine and I have had experience of Holli and her mother through our 6 years at Bromet so we know exactly what we're talking about. I too was scared to voice an opinion due to the fear of a violent backlash from Holli's mother - believe me, it has already happened in full view of other parents and children. I can assure you I don't work at Bromet and am not on the PTA or a Governor - my views are based on the facts of what I have witnessed over the years.[/p][/quote]I appreciate you comments and I am fully aware that we have not got the whole story...but I feel it was too heavy handed and stinks off retribution. Was this the first time the children and parents had to sign the Charter? Did your child take snacks? Honest answer? mummy_1

1:07am Sat 20 Jul 13

notquitethewholestory says...

mummy_1 wrote:
notquitethewholestor

y
wrote:
mummy_1 wrote:
Croxleygirl wrote:
Garston Tony...she was brought to my attention at the age of 8 for her foul language in the recreation park. Also for threatening other children and calling her older brother to deal with them when she was challenged back.
Croxleygirl you make a point but she is now 11 and not 8.

I still believe that she brought the ‘contraband’ to ingratiate herself with her peers because she is well aware what others think about her.

As a mother of 3 and all of mine have done year 6 IOW with their jnr, schools, I have NEVER been asked to sign a charter! Was that the first time that Bromet have introduced the this document. Are there any Bromet parents; brave enough to admit they also gave their kids snacks to take?
And shoes&sunshine quotes
' my child was shocked that holly's mum would give holly that much food to take and would break the rules like that' -
Can she with hand on heart say that her daughter did not take 1 single snack or drink from home into the hotel!!! I find that really hard to believe!!! The words ‘that much’ suggest she too had snacks and hey no one died!
Over to you shoes&sunshine


�!
I don't know who shoesandsunshine is but I share her views. mummy_1, both shoesandsunshine and I have had experience of Holli and her mother through our 6 years at Bromet so we know exactly what we're talking about. I too was scared to voice an opinion due to the fear of a violent backlash from Holli's mother - believe me, it has already happened in full view of other parents and children. I can assure you I don't work at Bromet and am not on the PTA or a Governor - my views are based on the facts of what I have witnessed over the years.
I appreciate you comments and I am fully aware that we have not got the whole story...but I feel it was too heavy handed and stinks off retribution.

Was this the first time the children and parents had to sign the Charter?

Did your child take snacks? Honest answer?
It was the first time we had to sign the charter - that said I have heard of other children at primary schools who have been asked to sign a similar agreement for the first time this year about a parent / school working agreement. No, my child did not take snacks. We were asked to buy certain snacks for the children and give them to their teacher so they could be shared. It was made clear that if snacks were eaten in the rooms and the hotel found evidence of that, Bromet would not be invited back again. I don't like to speak ill of a child - I think all children need guidance and a framework of how to behave from their parents - but sometimes the facts speak for themselves.
[quote][p][bold]mummy_1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notquitethewholestor y[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mummy_1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Croxleygirl[/bold] wrote: Garston Tony...she was brought to my attention at the age of 8 for her foul language in the recreation park. Also for threatening other children and calling her older brother to deal with them when she was challenged back.[/p][/quote]Croxleygirl you make a point but she is now 11 and not 8. I still believe that she brought the ‘contraband’ to ingratiate herself with her peers because she is well aware what others think about her. As a mother of 3 and all of mine have done year 6 IOW with their jnr, schools, I have NEVER been asked to sign a charter! Was that the first time that Bromet have introduced the this document. Are there any Bromet parents; brave enough to admit they also gave their kids snacks to take? And shoes&sunshine quotes ' my child was shocked that holly's mum would give holly that much food to take and would break the rules like that' - Can she with hand on heart say that her daughter did not take 1 single snack or drink from home into the hotel!!! I find that really hard to believe!!! The words ‘that much’ suggest she too had snacks and hey no one died! Over to you shoes&sunshine � �![/p][/quote]I don't know who shoesandsunshine is but I share her views. mummy_1, both shoesandsunshine and I have had experience of Holli and her mother through our 6 years at Bromet so we know exactly what we're talking about. I too was scared to voice an opinion due to the fear of a violent backlash from Holli's mother - believe me, it has already happened in full view of other parents and children. I can assure you I don't work at Bromet and am not on the PTA or a Governor - my views are based on the facts of what I have witnessed over the years.[/p][/quote]I appreciate you comments and I am fully aware that we have not got the whole story...but I feel it was too heavy handed and stinks off retribution. Was this the first time the children and parents had to sign the Charter? Did your child take snacks? Honest answer?[/p][/quote]It was the first time we had to sign the charter - that said I have heard of other children at primary schools who have been asked to sign a similar agreement for the first time this year about a parent / school working agreement. No, my child did not take snacks. We were asked to buy certain snacks for the children and give them to their teacher so they could be shared. It was made clear that if snacks were eaten in the rooms and the hotel found evidence of that, Bromet would not be invited back again. I don't like to speak ill of a child - I think all children need guidance and a framework of how to behave from their parents - but sometimes the facts speak for themselves. notquitethewholestory

3:52am Sat 20 Jul 13

Let`s`aveitright says...

All year 6 parents of Bromet pupils, I urge you to cast your mind back over the years. How many ethnic children can you think of who left that class, often without warning. Did you ever question why? Withdrawing my child from that School was the best thing I ever did. The head should retire. She is institutionalised, regimented, malicious and vindictive and could not care less about the damage she causes to children so long as she feels powerful. Any parent who thinks Bromet is a good or well managed School is deluded and inexperienced, presumably without another school to compare Bromet with! I removed my child solely because of the headmistress. I have also witnessed a teacher trembling in fear of her so if the children say they like her it is probably because they have seen how she bullies and humiliates children there and don`t want it to be themselves next in her firing line. Very unprofessional in her conduct both to children and parents who may challenge her. Oh and be warned....once she knows you are complaining about her she will call social services and tell them lies about you!
All year 6 parents of Bromet pupils, I urge you to cast your mind back over the years. How many ethnic children can you think of who left that class, often without warning. Did you ever question why? Withdrawing my child from that School was the best thing I ever did. The head should retire. She is institutionalised, regimented, malicious and vindictive and could not care less about the damage she causes to children so long as she feels powerful. Any parent who thinks Bromet is a good or well managed School is deluded and inexperienced, presumably without another school to compare Bromet with! I removed my child solely because of the headmistress. I have also witnessed a teacher trembling in fear of her so if the children say they like her it is probably because they have seen how she bullies and humiliates children there and don`t want it to be themselves next in her firing line. Very unprofessional in her conduct both to children and parents who may challenge her. Oh and be warned....once she knows you are complaining about her she will call social services and tell them lies about you! Let`s`aveitright

4:10am Sat 20 Jul 13

Let`s`aveitright says...

mummy_1 wrote:
We are all protective of our children and Ms McCann has the right to be too.
Whether it was the chocolate incident or a build-up of things, the school could have handled it better
My opinion is that these days there are far too many 'parents' from the nearby community working at the same schools where their children attend. This lends itself to local disputes, prejudices, tittle- tattle and local hearsay all determining how staff and their peers treat them. The majority of parent employees in school do not have any child's interest at heart except their own. They are neither qualified or driven to do the work they are employed to do and serve only to spread local and community gossip into and out if the school.
I would put a small amount of money that 'shoes&sunshine (as well as a parent to a child in year 6) is either a TA, dinner lady or heavily involved with school or the PTA. If you are, then shame on you. If you are not (sorry) but shame on you as a parent for spitting such venom at towards an 11-year-old child.
Tell you what I truly believe, the Hollie probably could feel the animosity from her peers and bought the goodies to make friends/bargaining because I am sure most parents had already expressed a wish for their child NOT to share a room with Hollie and this was the school’s heavy handed way of keeping the majority of parents happy by simply sending Hollie home.
Please respond to the 2 paragraphs above, as I am sure I may be right on a lot of what I have said.
If the WO is wrong for covering the story, you are worse for talking about an 11 year old child and her family in such a slanderous and bitter manner.
Ms McCann it probably wasn’t a great move going to the press but regardless of what Hollie did or did not do, she doesn’t deserve the poison some are spouting.
The Best of Luck to Holli in Y7.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head here mummy1.
Your post initially reminded me of when a netball post, which (for health and safety reasons) should`ve been weighted with sand or water but was not, fell and cracked a childs head in the playground. The childs mother was a lunchtime supervisor at Bromet School.......Just saying!!!
[quote][p][bold]mummy_1[/bold] wrote: We are all protective of our children and Ms McCann has the right to be too. Whether it was the chocolate incident or a build-up of things, the school could have handled it better My opinion is that these days there are far too many 'parents' from the nearby community working at the same schools where their children attend. This lends itself to local disputes, prejudices, tittle- tattle and local hearsay all determining how staff and their peers treat them. The majority of parent employees in school do not have any child's interest at heart except their own. They are neither qualified or driven to do the work they are employed to do and serve only to spread local and community gossip into and out if the school. I would put a small amount of money that 'shoes&sunshine (as well as a parent to a child in year 6) is either a TA, dinner lady or heavily involved with school or the PTA. If you are, then shame on you. If you are not (sorry) but shame on you as a parent for spitting such venom at towards an 11-year-old child. Tell you what I truly believe, the Hollie probably could feel the animosity from her peers and bought the goodies to make friends/bargaining because I am sure most parents had already expressed a wish for their child NOT to share a room with Hollie and this was the school’s heavy handed way of keeping the majority of parents happy by simply sending Hollie home. Please respond to the 2 paragraphs above, as I am sure I may be right on a lot of what I have said. If the WO is wrong for covering the story, you are worse for talking about an 11 year old child and her family in such a slanderous and bitter manner. Ms McCann it probably wasn’t a great move going to the press but regardless of what Hollie did or did not do, she doesn’t deserve the poison some are spouting. The Best of Luck to Holli in Y7.[/p][/quote]I think you may have hit the nail on the head here mummy1. Your post initially reminded me of when a netball post, which (for health and safety reasons) should`ve been weighted with sand or water but was not, fell and cracked a childs head in the playground. The childs mother was a lunchtime supervisor at Bromet School.......Just saying!!! Let`s`aveitright

7:13am Sat 20 Jul 13

Andrew Turpie says...

DrFreddo wrote:
As a Freddo, I find this whole ordeal extremely offensive!
The kind of prejudice that has been thrust onto my fellow confectionaries disgusts and appals me.
I feel that someone in such a high position of power and influence over our youth would have more insight into how detrimental blatant discrimination can be in society!
While this child may be conveyed as a bad creme egg, it doesn't excuse the fact that innocent chocolate bars are paying the price!
I'd just like to say Mrs Graves, if you continue in this manner, on behalf of my brethren I will find you and force feed you toblerone until you can eat no
More.

Sincerely,
A Disgruntled Freddo
Ha ha, spat out my tea reading that, thanks for the light hearted break :)

Ben Endley, the Daily Mail just called, you got the job :D

Folks, no matter the story, at the end of the day remember that a 11 year old child is at the centre. We as a society should protect young 'uns from harm, Endley's kangaroo courts don't seem to grasp that fact....
[quote][p][bold]DrFreddo[/bold] wrote: As a Freddo, I find this whole ordeal extremely offensive! The kind of prejudice that has been thrust onto my fellow confectionaries disgusts and appals me. I feel that someone in such a high position of power and influence over our youth would have more insight into how detrimental blatant discrimination can be in society! While this child may be conveyed as a bad creme egg, it doesn't excuse the fact that innocent chocolate bars are paying the price! I'd just like to say Mrs Graves, if you continue in this manner, on behalf of my brethren I will find you and force feed you toblerone until you can eat no More. Sincerely, A Disgruntled Freddo[/p][/quote]Ha ha, spat out my tea reading that, thanks for the light hearted break :) Ben Endley, the Daily Mail just called, you got the job :D Folks, no matter the story, at the end of the day remember that a 11 year old child is at the centre. We as a society should protect young 'uns from harm, Endley's kangaroo courts don't seem to grasp that fact.... Andrew Turpie

8:29am Sat 20 Jul 13

JohnnyHornet says...

Wow, claws everyone, it's an 11 years old kid for god sake, didn't most of you play up at school at some point, or have a midnight snack on a school trip, we had beer so I suppose we should have got the death penalty, relax your sphincters chaps and chapesses or you'll have a coronary. Whatever happened to kids having a bit of fun and pushing boundaries it's all part of growing up.
Wow, claws everyone, it's an 11 years old kid for god sake, didn't most of you play up at school at some point, or have a midnight snack on a school trip, we had beer so I suppose we should have got the death penalty, relax your sphincters chaps and chapesses or you'll have a coronary. Whatever happened to kids having a bit of fun and pushing boundaries it's all part of growing up. JohnnyHornet

8:34am Sat 20 Jul 13

JohnnyHornet says...

Taximan wrote:
Hitler died 1945 sounds like he's come back as the head of bromit school.
It was presumed he died, never officially proven, so Bromet School could be his final place.
[quote][p][bold]Taximan[/bold] wrote: Hitler died 1945 sounds like he's come back as the head of bromit school.[/p][/quote]It was presumed he died, never officially proven, so Bromet School could be his final place. JohnnyHornet

9:26am Sat 20 Jul 13

mummy_1 says...

Let`s`aveitright wrote:
mummy_1 wrote:
We are all protective of our children and Ms McCann has the right to be too.
Whether it was the chocolate incident or a build-up of things, the school could have handled it better
My opinion is that these days there are far too many 'parents' from the nearby community working at the same schools where their children attend. This lends itself to local disputes, prejudices, tittle- tattle and local hearsay all determining how staff and their peers treat them. The majority of parent employees in school do not have any child's interest at heart except their own. They are neither qualified or driven to do the work they are employed to do and serve only to spread local and community gossip into and out if the school.
I would put a small amount of money that 'shoes&sunshine (as well as a parent to a child in year 6) is either a TA, dinner lady or heavily involved with school or the PTA. If you are, then shame on you. If you are not (sorry) but shame on you as a parent for spitting such venom at towards an 11-year-old child.
Tell you what I truly believe, the Hollie probably could feel the animosity from her peers and bought the goodies to make friends/bargaining because I am sure most parents had already expressed a wish for their child NOT to share a room with Hollie and this was the school’s heavy handed way of keeping the majority of parents happy by simply sending Hollie home.
Please respond to the 2 paragraphs above, as I am sure I may be right on a lot of what I have said.
If the WO is wrong for covering the story, you are worse for talking about an 11 year old child and her family in such a slanderous and bitter manner.
Ms McCann it probably wasn’t a great move going to the press but regardless of what Hollie did or did not do, she doesn’t deserve the poison some are spouting.
The Best of Luck to Holli in Y7.
I think you may have hit the nail on the head here mummy1.
Your post initially reminded me of when a netball post, which (for health and safety reasons) should`ve been weighted with sand or water but was not, fell and cracked a childs head in the playground. The childs mother was a lunchtime supervisor at Bromet School.......Just saying!!!
The proportion of parent staff at 'our' school is in my opinion high and the quality of work and commitment (as a rule) is pretty poor.

They look so disinterested in their role and only ever come alive to scold, moan or gossip. To be a dinner lady patrolling the playground, there is no training necessary. Just rock up, put on your tabard and off you go (pass a CRB check of course). I am not belittling the task; I am just saying that schools take this role lightly.

If employees & school associates were made go on child welfare courses, asked to sign a confidentiality charter, there would not be quite so many parents wanting the position and less tittle- tattle and gossip being spread through-out the school and beyond about kids who have to live and work within the same community.

Still waiting shoes&sunshine to clarify a few points with me. Since she spouted her bile about another child and family she has gone very quiet.
[quote][p][bold]Let`s`aveitright[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mummy_1[/bold] wrote: We are all protective of our children and Ms McCann has the right to be too. Whether it was the chocolate incident or a build-up of things, the school could have handled it better My opinion is that these days there are far too many 'parents' from the nearby community working at the same schools where their children attend. This lends itself to local disputes, prejudices, tittle- tattle and local hearsay all determining how staff and their peers treat them. The majority of parent employees in school do not have any child's interest at heart except their own. They are neither qualified or driven to do the work they are employed to do and serve only to spread local and community gossip into and out if the school. I would put a small amount of money that 'shoes&sunshine (as well as a parent to a child in year 6) is either a TA, dinner lady or heavily involved with school or the PTA. If you are, then shame on you. If you are not (sorry) but shame on you as a parent for spitting such venom at towards an 11-year-old child. Tell you what I truly believe, the Hollie probably could feel the animosity from her peers and bought the goodies to make friends/bargaining because I am sure most parents had already expressed a wish for their child NOT to share a room with Hollie and this was the school’s heavy handed way of keeping the majority of parents happy by simply sending Hollie home. Please respond to the 2 paragraphs above, as I am sure I may be right on a lot of what I have said. If the WO is wrong for covering the story, you are worse for talking about an 11 year old child and her family in such a slanderous and bitter manner. Ms McCann it probably wasn’t a great move going to the press but regardless of what Hollie did or did not do, she doesn’t deserve the poison some are spouting. The Best of Luck to Holli in Y7.[/p][/quote]I think you may have hit the nail on the head here mummy1. Your post initially reminded me of when a netball post, which (for health and safety reasons) should`ve been weighted with sand or water but was not, fell and cracked a childs head in the playground. The childs mother was a lunchtime supervisor at Bromet School.......Just saying!!![/p][/quote]The proportion of parent staff at 'our' school is in my opinion high and the quality of work and commitment (as a rule) is pretty poor. They look so disinterested in their role and only ever come alive to scold, moan or gossip. To be a dinner lady patrolling the playground, there is no training necessary. Just rock up, put on your tabard and off you go (pass a CRB check of course). I am not belittling the task; I am just saying that schools take this role lightly. If employees & school associates were made go on child welfare courses, asked to sign a confidentiality charter, there would not be quite so many parents wanting the position and less tittle- tattle and gossip being spread through-out the school and beyond about kids who have to live and work within the same community. Still waiting shoes&sunshine to clarify a few points with me. Since she spouted her bile about another child and family she has gone very quiet. mummy_1

9:33am Sat 20 Jul 13

factfinding says...

'misbehaving on the beach' was probably the more important reason for her being sent home, but why let the truth get in the way of a good headline?
'misbehaving on the beach' was probably the more important reason for her being sent home, but why let the truth get in the way of a good headline? factfinding

9:53am Sat 20 Jul 13

harrow resident says...

Shameful behaviour of Ms McCann for bringing such a brilliant school into disrepute and furthering by involving the National media (every dam newspaper .
Allowing her so called 19yr old autistic son to sort his sisters school friends out.
Allowing her daughter to break school rules (joint enterprise) and her bad behaviour.
What ever ,Ms McCann has ruined her daughters academic years as her school reports will follow where this creature goes (politely her little ****).
Mum appears to be some what of a Bully the same said for her brothers..Martin McCann selling stories (constant **** ) to the media,suing David Beckham for 5million, Mitch Winehouse (Amy Winehouses father) robbing them of the Amy Winehouse Foundation name,when he hasn't got two bob to rub together.
Oh yes lovely people not.
One ponders,do they get paid for there stories in the paper ?( must be the craze to top up there benefits).
How ever Mrs Gravers and her dedicated staff GOOD LUCK in this complaint ,your onto a winner 99% parents and students at Bromet back you.good riddance to trouble makers
Shameful behaviour of Ms McCann for bringing such a brilliant school into disrepute and furthering by involving the National media (every dam newspaper . Allowing her so called 19yr old autistic son to sort his sisters school friends out. Allowing her daughter to break school rules (joint enterprise) and her bad behaviour. What ever ,Ms McCann has ruined her daughters academic years as her school reports will follow where this creature goes (politely her little ****). Mum appears to be some what of a Bully the same said for her brothers..Martin McCann selling stories (constant **** ) to the media,suing David Beckham for 5million, Mitch Winehouse (Amy Winehouses father) robbing them of the Amy Winehouse Foundation name,when he hasn't got two bob to rub together. Oh yes lovely people not. One ponders,do they get paid for there stories in the paper ?( must be the craze to top up there benefits). How ever Mrs Gravers and her dedicated staff GOOD LUCK in this complaint ,your onto a winner 99% parents and students at Bromet back you.good riddance to trouble makers harrow resident

11:56am Sat 20 Jul 13

WolominKz28 says...

Solail777 wrote:
Head teacher was totally right. Think about it this way, if she had misbehaved on the beach and nothing was done, she could of drowned. And what if her and the other children choked on all the chocolate they were eating when they should of been asleep. Or another child had an allergy?? This would of caused a hell of a lot more uproar. She is teaching her child to not listen authority, which is clearly why she broke the rules in the first place. Good on the head teacher!
r u being serious???
[quote][p][bold]Solail777[/bold] wrote: Head teacher was totally right. Think about it this way, if she had misbehaved on the beach and nothing was done, she could of drowned. And what if her and the other children choked on all the chocolate they were eating when they should of been asleep. Or another child had an allergy?? This would of caused a hell of a lot more uproar. She is teaching her child to not listen authority, which is clearly why she broke the rules in the first place. Good on the head teacher![/p][/quote]r u being serious??? WolominKz28

12:28pm Sat 20 Jul 13

Sealegs says...

I feel sorry for the teachers. There's a lot more to this than chocolate. Rules are rules and she looks a right little madam. And her stupid daft parents decide to contact the paper to try to upstage the school. Pathetic.
I feel sorry for the teachers. There's a lot more to this than chocolate. Rules are rules and she looks a right little madam. And her stupid daft parents decide to contact the paper to try to upstage the school. Pathetic. Sealegs

12:39pm Sat 20 Jul 13

watfordguymatt says...

I would imagine that I am the only poster that has had the experience of having Mrs Graves as a teacher (11 years ago before she was the head), so as probably the only person here who has had experience of her teaching perhaps I can clarify a few points. I can assure above commenters making snap judgements that I have only fond memories of my experiences as a pupil under her, even as someone who was hardly the most academic and gifted in the class. I only ever found her to be a fair and funny teacher, but firm if she had to be.

I think it is obvious that the girl was on a final warning after her reported "misbehaviour" on the beach (something which her parents seem to have conveniently dismissed if the incident was as serious as described by the above commenter). If she was given a final chance and broke the rules again I don't see how Mrs Graves would have had any other choice.
I would imagine that I am the only poster that has had the experience of having Mrs Graves as a teacher (11 years ago before she was the head), so as probably the only person here who has had experience of her teaching perhaps I can clarify a few points. I can assure above commenters making snap judgements that I have only fond memories of my experiences as a pupil under her, even as someone who was hardly the most academic and gifted in the class. I only ever found her to be a fair and funny teacher, but firm if she had to be. I think it is obvious that the girl was on a final warning after her reported "misbehaviour" on the beach (something which her parents seem to have conveniently dismissed if the incident was as serious as described by the above commenter). If she was given a final chance and broke the rules again I don't see how Mrs Graves would have had any other choice. watfordguymatt

1:36pm Sat 20 Jul 13

Let`s`aveitright says...

HEAD-TEACHERS RECEIVE A SALARY IN THE REGION OF 150K....FROM THE TAX-PAYER!!

Ms McCann, It surprises me that you haven`t had a nervous breakdown. You must be a very committed parent to ensure your daughters stability by travelling so far in order to keep your daughter in the same school after moving out of the area. You have dedicated 19 years of your life to care for an autistic child. I am sure that surviving on your £60/70 weekly benefit money has been a constant struggle. I am not surprised you suffer from stress and anxiety.
I personally wish you well in your quest to bring Mrs Graves leadership capabilities into question and wish Holli a positive and happy experience in her new School.
HEAD-TEACHERS RECEIVE A SALARY IN THE REGION OF 150K....FROM THE TAX-PAYER!! Ms McCann, It surprises me that you haven`t had a nervous breakdown. You must be a very committed parent to ensure your daughters stability by travelling so far in order to keep your daughter in the same school after moving out of the area. You have dedicated 19 years of your life to care for an autistic child. I am sure that surviving on your £60/70 weekly benefit money has been a constant struggle. I am not surprised you suffer from stress and anxiety. I personally wish you well in your quest to bring Mrs Graves leadership capabilities into question and wish Holli a positive and happy experience in her new School. Let`s`aveitright

3:38pm Sat 20 Jul 13

Anyvacancies says...

There is not the slightest chance Ms McCann only gets between 60 to 70 pounds benefit a week Lets Aveitright, I think we have the balance of opinion is in favour of the headteacher.
There is not the slightest chance Ms McCann only gets between 60 to 70 pounds benefit a week Lets Aveitright, I think we have the balance of opinion is in favour of the headteacher. Anyvacancies

5:20pm Sat 20 Jul 13

LSC says...

Anyvacancies wrote:
There is not the slightest chance Ms McCann only gets between 60 to 70 pounds benefit a week Lets Aveitright, I think we have the balance of opinion is in favour of the headteacher.
The story says she has a car. The average weekly cost of that is £44 just to tax and insure it. (Source: AA) Then you have to add the costs of fuel, tyres, breakdowns, and so forth.

If you own and drive a car but only get £60 to £70 a week, you don't EAT, let alone send kids on holidays or pay for fancy nail varnish and choccy bars.

So it is safe to assume her income from whatever source (I don't know her, perhaps she has a rich family) is fairly healthy.
[quote][p][bold]Anyvacancies[/bold] wrote: There is not the slightest chance Ms McCann only gets between 60 to 70 pounds benefit a week Lets Aveitright, I think we have the balance of opinion is in favour of the headteacher.[/p][/quote]The story says she has a car. The average weekly cost of that is £44 just to tax and insure it. (Source: AA) Then you have to add the costs of fuel, tyres, breakdowns, and so forth. If you own and drive a car but only get £60 to £70 a week, you don't EAT, let alone send kids on holidays or pay for fancy nail varnish and choccy bars. So it is safe to assume her income from whatever source (I don't know her, perhaps she has a rich family) is fairly healthy. LSC

6:00pm Sat 20 Jul 13

SamTheEagle says...

It seems a bit excessive to send the child home but, I assume, they all knew the rules before they left so there is only one person to blame. That said, I can't believe it was only about chocolate, there has to be more to this than meets the eye.
It seems a bit excessive to send the child home but, I assume, they all knew the rules before they left so there is only one person to blame. That said, I can't believe it was only about chocolate, there has to be more to this than meets the eye. SamTheEagle

7:28pm Sat 20 Jul 13

LynAnn says...

May 2011
Dear Governors,
I’m a parent who recently moved to Oxhey Hall. As a parent it is obviously very important to find the best school possible that meets the needs of my child. We, as his parents, want a school where he can academically and socially succeed. To that end we have endeavoured to visit local schools to discover their ethos and atmosphere.
I’m aware of the pressure on the local schools with more applicants than spaces available, however vacancies do arise. The other schools have been accommodating in allowing us to visit, regardless of the admission availability.
Unfortunately that has not been the case with Bromet primary school.
I called to make an appointment on Thursday 28th April, and was told that with the upcoming bank holiday weekend that was not possible. I asked for a return call the Tuesday which was agreed to. Nobody called, so I called the school again. I spoke to Mrs. A*, whom I found to be rude and aggressive. I was told that no visitors were being accepted as it was exam time. However, when I pressed the issue, it would seem the real reason was because the school was full.
I wouldn’t imagine parents or governors would think staff being less than forthcoming in their motives and being rude and aggressive gives a good impression of the school. Nor do I see how Mrs. A* could know the school would remain full for the next admissions round.
I look forward to your reply.
Yours Sincerely,

Good morning,
I haven’t received an acknowledgement of the receipt of my email. Could you let me know the timeframe you work within for reply?
Yours truly


05/05/2011


to me


Good morning Ms H*

Your e-mail was forwarded to the members of the governing body. Should they wish to discuss this matter at the next governors' meeting (2 weeks time), it will be part of AOB. However, the governors have no obligation to respond, only courtesy, as your family are not part of the parental/student body.

The head teacher, Mrs Graves, has responded to your e-mail in writing. This response should be received very shortly as it was posted 4th May.

We trust that this is the information you require.

Never heard from the board of governors – heads letter was little more than sod off. Hertfordshire CC said “it’s her school, she can do what she likes”.
Lovely – this is what I pay through the teeth tax for?
May 2011 Dear Governors, I’m a parent who recently moved to Oxhey Hall. As a parent it is obviously very important to find the best school possible that meets the needs of my child. We, as his parents, want a school where he can academically and socially succeed. To that end we have endeavoured to visit local schools to discover their ethos and atmosphere. I’m aware of the pressure on the local schools with more applicants than spaces available, however vacancies do arise. The other schools have been accommodating in allowing us to visit, regardless of the admission availability. Unfortunately that has not been the case with Bromet primary school. I called to make an appointment on Thursday 28th April, and was told that with the upcoming bank holiday weekend that was not possible. I asked for a return call the Tuesday which was agreed to. Nobody called, so I called the school again. I spoke to Mrs. A*, whom I found to be rude and aggressive. I was told that no visitors were being accepted as it was exam time. However, when I pressed the issue, it would seem the real reason was because the school was full. I wouldn’t imagine parents or governors would think staff being less than forthcoming in their motives and being rude and aggressive gives a good impression of the school. Nor do I see how Mrs. A* could know the school would remain full for the next admissions round. I look forward to your reply. Yours Sincerely, Good morning, I haven’t received an acknowledgement of the receipt of my email. Could you let me know the timeframe you work within for reply? Yours truly 05/05/2011 to me Good morning Ms H* Your e-mail was forwarded to the members of the governing body. Should they wish to discuss this matter at the next governors' meeting (2 weeks time), it will be part of AOB. However, the governors have no obligation to respond, only courtesy, as your family are not part of the parental/student body. The head teacher, Mrs Graves, has responded to your e-mail in writing. This response should be received very shortly as it was posted 4th May. We trust that this is the information you require. Never heard from the board of governors – heads letter was little more than sod off. Hertfordshire CC said “it’s her school, she can do what she likes”. Lovely – this is what I pay through the teeth tax for? LynAnn

7:36pm Sat 20 Jul 13

DFL says...

LSC wrote:
Anyvacancies wrote:
There is not the slightest chance Ms McCann only gets between 60 to 70 pounds benefit a week Lets Aveitright, I think we have the balance of opinion is in favour of the headteacher.
The story says she has a car. The average weekly cost of that is £44 just to tax and insure it. (Source: AA) Then you have to add the costs of fuel, tyres, breakdowns, and so forth.

If you own and drive a car but only get £60 to £70 a week, you don't EAT, let alone send kids on holidays or pay for fancy nail varnish and choccy bars.

So it is safe to assume her income from whatever source (I don't know her, perhaps she has a rich family) is fairly healthy.
Let's not forget she can't work because she suffers from panic attacks and stress but yet she managed to drive there perfectly fine. Sounds like she can work to me.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Anyvacancies[/bold] wrote: There is not the slightest chance Ms McCann only gets between 60 to 70 pounds benefit a week Lets Aveitright, I think we have the balance of opinion is in favour of the headteacher.[/p][/quote]The story says she has a car. The average weekly cost of that is £44 just to tax and insure it. (Source: AA) Then you have to add the costs of fuel, tyres, breakdowns, and so forth. If you own and drive a car but only get £60 to £70 a week, you don't EAT, let alone send kids on holidays or pay for fancy nail varnish and choccy bars. So it is safe to assume her income from whatever source (I don't know her, perhaps she has a rich family) is fairly healthy.[/p][/quote]Let's not forget she can't work because she suffers from panic attacks and stress but yet she managed to drive there perfectly fine. Sounds like she can work to me. DFL

8:43pm Sat 20 Jul 13

miss_caz says...

Both of my children went to this school and on the IOW trip, we were basically told if we did not sign the behaviour charter then our children could not go.... I am not surprised that this has happened when my eldest started there was a different head she was strict approachable and always had time for parents. When she left and Mrs Graves took over the school went downhill. I know of numerous parents over the years who have had issues with her and her reaction to this girl comes as no surprise to me.

Maybe its time for a change of head there
Both of my children went to this school and on the IOW trip, we were basically told if we did not sign the behaviour charter then our children could not go.... I am not surprised that this has happened when my eldest started there was a different head she was strict approachable and always had time for parents. When she left and Mrs Graves took over the school went downhill. I know of numerous parents over the years who have had issues with her and her reaction to this girl comes as no surprise to me. Maybe its time for a change of head there miss_caz

1:00am Sun 21 Jul 13

Screwball66 says...

She needs to spend less time sniffing and drinking and spend more time looking for a job as she is more than capable!!

And there is clearly more to her daughter being 'thrown off a trip for chocolate' she's a little gobshite like her mother.

Anything for some extra cash. *sniff sniff*
She needs to spend less time sniffing and drinking and spend more time looking for a job as she is more than capable!! And there is clearly more to her daughter being 'thrown off a trip for chocolate' she's a little gobshite like her mother. Anything for some extra cash. *sniff sniff* Screwball66

6:23am Sun 21 Jul 13

Andrew Turpie says...

Ahh the Endley kangaroo court still in full swing I see.

Lots of anti school bile being spouted as per the norm, if you feel you cannot abide by the rules set out by a head or governors at any school, you have rights within this free and democratic country to either move your child from the school or even consider home schooling.

Also disturbing to find that posters like the one above accusing the mother of drinking too much and "sniffing". If this is true then why are you people allowing an 11 year old to live in that environment, if there was any concrete proof then surely it would be better to go the authorities who could remove this child from the risks you are mentioning on these comments. Publicly admitting that you know a young child lives in a risky environment and doing nothing about it, doesn't make you a better person, think about it.

I don't know this family, but as per everyone of Mr Endley's stories, it contains more holes than a tetley teabag. So will refrain from judging.
Ahh the Endley kangaroo court still in full swing I see. Lots of anti school bile being spouted as per the norm, if you feel you cannot abide by the rules set out by a head or governors at any school, you have rights within this free and democratic country to either move your child from the school or even consider home schooling. Also disturbing to find that posters like the one above accusing the mother of drinking too much and "sniffing". If this is true then why are you people allowing an 11 year old to live in that environment, if there was any concrete proof then surely it would be better to go the authorities who could remove this child from the risks you are mentioning on these comments. Publicly admitting that you know a young child lives in a risky environment and doing nothing about it, doesn't make you a better person, think about it. I don't know this family, but as per everyone of Mr Endley's stories, it contains more holes than a tetley teabag. So will refrain from judging. Andrew Turpie

8:30am Sun 21 Jul 13

Croxleygirl says...

Garston Tony ...she is 11 now and clearly still badly behaved (not her fault she's a child)
It makes you wonder if she's the reason the school produced the Charter!
Her Mother needs to look at the above comments. It can't be nice to see yourself and your child slated like this. She needs to take a good look at herself and sort it. They can't possibly be happy.
Garston Tony ...she is 11 now and clearly still badly behaved (not her fault she's a child) It makes you wonder if she's the reason the school produced the Charter! Her Mother needs to look at the above comments. It can't be nice to see yourself and your child slated like this. She needs to take a good look at herself and sort it. They can't possibly be happy. Croxleygirl

9:29am Sun 21 Jul 13

mummy_1 says...

Croxleygirl wrote:
Garston Tony ...she is 11 now and clearly still badly behaved (not her fault she's a child)
It makes you wonder if she's the reason the school produced the Charter!
Her Mother needs to look at the above comments. It can't be nice to see yourself and your child slated like this. She needs to take a good look at herself and sort it. They can't possibly be happy.
This is exactly the point I was making to you yesterday. The charter may as well be known as the Holli McCann Charter. It was introduced in 2013 because the school Head and staff were too cowardly to deal with the real problem and tell Ms McCann earlier in the term (for maybe legitimate reasons) they did not wish to take her to the IOW

A hotel, which has just made a small fortune by having around 30 kids out of season, can surely deal with a bit of sugar, chocolate and drink spillage. If they were adult paying guests, they could not make that request and I can assure that Hotels have dealt with and cleaned up a lot worse!!!

What a croc of nonsense. I would be interested to know what Hotel it was. Probably the same one my kids have stayed at in the pass. They rocked up fully loaded with treats for personal use and midnight snacks and kept amongst their belongings snacks they purchased during the day and the school return to year after year.

Did the teachers not have drinks and eat snacks in their rooms after dark!! Do adults not leave crumbs or spill drinks.

It is obvious what Bromet parents and neighbours think about Holli and her family.

What rubbish that they decided to search her room after reading her postcard. I beleive that another child told tales as they knew it it make them popular amongst the staff and parents Being popular with staff is great in Y6. Try doing the same in YR7 and the consequences will not be so seemingly rewarding.
[quote][p][bold]Croxleygirl[/bold] wrote: Garston Tony ...she is 11 now and clearly still badly behaved (not her fault she's a child) It makes you wonder if she's the reason the school produced the Charter! Her Mother needs to look at the above comments. It can't be nice to see yourself and your child slated like this. She needs to take a good look at herself and sort it. They can't possibly be happy.[/p][/quote]This is exactly the point I was making to you yesterday. The charter may as well be known as the Holli McCann Charter. It was introduced in 2013 because the school Head and staff were too cowardly to deal with the real problem and tell Ms McCann earlier in the term (for maybe legitimate reasons) they did not wish to take her to the IOW A hotel, which has just made a small fortune by having around 30 kids out of season, can surely deal with a bit of sugar, chocolate and drink spillage. If they were adult paying guests, they could not make that request and I can assure that Hotels have dealt with and cleaned up a lot worse!!! What a croc of nonsense. I would be interested to know what Hotel it was. Probably the same one my kids have stayed at in the pass. They rocked up fully loaded with treats for personal use and midnight snacks and kept amongst their belongings snacks they purchased during the day and the school return to year after year. Did the teachers not have drinks and eat snacks in their rooms after dark!! Do adults not leave crumbs or spill drinks. It is obvious what Bromet parents and neighbours think about Holli and her family. What rubbish that they decided to search her room after reading her postcard. I beleive that another child told tales as they knew it it make them popular amongst the staff and parents Being popular with staff is great in Y6. Try doing the same in YR7 and the consequences will not be so seemingly rewarding. mummy_1

10:28am Sun 21 Jul 13

Sealegs says...

mummy_1 wrote:
Croxleygirl wrote:
Garston Tony ...she is 11 now and clearly still badly behaved (not her fault she's a child)
It makes you wonder if she's the reason the school produced the Charter!
Her Mother needs to look at the above comments. It can't be nice to see yourself and your child slated like this. She needs to take a good look at herself and sort it. They can't possibly be happy.
This is exactly the point I was making to you yesterday. The charter may as well be known as the Holli McCann Charter. It was introduced in 2013 because the school Head and staff were too cowardly to deal with the real problem and tell Ms McCann earlier in the term (for maybe legitimate reasons) they did not wish to take her to the IOW

A hotel, which has just made a small fortune by having around 30 kids out of season, can surely deal with a bit of sugar, chocolate and drink spillage. If they were adult paying guests, they could not make that request and I can assure that Hotels have dealt with and cleaned up a lot worse!!!

What a croc of nonsense. I would be interested to know what Hotel it was. Probably the same one my kids have stayed at in the pass. They rocked up fully loaded with treats for personal use and midnight snacks and kept amongst their belongings snacks they purchased during the day and the school return to year after year.

Did the teachers not have drinks and eat snacks in their rooms after dark!! Do adults not leave crumbs or spill drinks.

It is obvious what Bromet parents and neighbours think about Holli and her family.

What rubbish that they decided to search her room after reading her postcard. I beleive that another child told tales as they knew it it make them popular amongst the staff and parents Being popular with staff is great in Y6. Try doing the same in YR7 and the consequences will not be so seemingly rewarding.
What a load of nonsense. Croxleygirl, I agree with you 100%.

It's so depressing when I hear stories like this and even more so when these mummy_1 type characters start chipping in. That means that it is becoming a culture., undisciplined one, and this little brat will be the same when she starts reproducing in 3 or 4 years. But at least I can console myself in the fact that by far the majority of posts on here are on the side of the school and not these ignorant parent's who really believed they were going to rally support for their little darling and then failed miserably. However, put this incident into 2023 and it will be a different story, sadly.
[quote][p][bold]mummy_1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Croxleygirl[/bold] wrote: Garston Tony ...she is 11 now and clearly still badly behaved (not her fault she's a child) It makes you wonder if she's the reason the school produced the Charter! Her Mother needs to look at the above comments. It can't be nice to see yourself and your child slated like this. She needs to take a good look at herself and sort it. They can't possibly be happy.[/p][/quote]This is exactly the point I was making to you yesterday. The charter may as well be known as the Holli McCann Charter. It was introduced in 2013 because the school Head and staff were too cowardly to deal with the real problem and tell Ms McCann earlier in the term (for maybe legitimate reasons) they did not wish to take her to the IOW A hotel, which has just made a small fortune by having around 30 kids out of season, can surely deal with a bit of sugar, chocolate and drink spillage. If they were adult paying guests, they could not make that request and I can assure that Hotels have dealt with and cleaned up a lot worse!!! What a croc of nonsense. I would be interested to know what Hotel it was. Probably the same one my kids have stayed at in the pass. They rocked up fully loaded with treats for personal use and midnight snacks and kept amongst their belongings snacks they purchased during the day and the school return to year after year. Did the teachers not have drinks and eat snacks in their rooms after dark!! Do adults not leave crumbs or spill drinks. It is obvious what Bromet parents and neighbours think about Holli and her family. What rubbish that they decided to search her room after reading her postcard. I beleive that another child told tales as they knew it it make them popular amongst the staff and parents Being popular with staff is great in Y6. Try doing the same in YR7 and the consequences will not be so seemingly rewarding.[/p][/quote]What a load of nonsense. Croxleygirl, I agree with you 100%. It's so depressing when I hear stories like this and even more so when these mummy_1 type characters start chipping in. That means that it is becoming a culture., undisciplined one, and this little brat will be the same when she starts reproducing in 3 or 4 years. But at least I can console myself in the fact that by far the majority of posts on here are on the side of the school and not these ignorant parent's who really believed they were going to rally support for their little darling and then failed miserably. However, put this incident into 2023 and it will be a different story, sadly. Sealegs

2:33pm Sun 21 Jul 13

Let`s`aveitright says...

What kind of people refer to a child as `Bratt` or `Creature`?
This hate-breeding is both inhumane and unwanted in society.
Mrs Graves feels safe and secure with her little posse of supporters, ie. her illiterate secretary and one or two teaching staff/governors. The fact remains, she was too scared to stand up to the McCanns and the "Holli McCann charter" was simply an act of malicious revenge to satisfy the pathetic characteristic flaw of the Chameleon Headmistress.
Well done W.O. for printing this story and I very much look forward to reading the follow up!
What kind of people refer to a child as `Bratt` or `Creature`? This hate-breeding is both inhumane and unwanted in society. Mrs Graves feels safe and secure with her little posse of supporters, ie. her illiterate secretary and one or two teaching staff/governors. The fact remains, she was too scared to stand up to the McCanns and the "Holli McCann charter" was simply an act of malicious revenge to satisfy the pathetic characteristic flaw of the Chameleon Headmistress. Well done W.O. for printing this story and I very much look forward to reading the follow up! Let`s`aveitright

3:00pm Sun 21 Jul 13

LSC says...

I'm assuming that because the mother is out of work, she can't afford a computer and that is why she hasn't commented on here to defend herself and her daughter after she herself went to the press in the first place and caused the story to be published.

My instinct says otherwise, but I'm in a generous mood.
I'm assuming that because the mother is out of work, she can't afford a computer and that is why she hasn't commented on here to defend herself and her daughter after she herself went to the press in the first place and caused the story to be published. My instinct says otherwise, but I'm in a generous mood. LSC

4:37pm Sun 21 Jul 13

Sealegs says...

LSC wrote:
I'm assuming that because the mother is out of work, she can't afford a computer and that is why she hasn't commented on here to defend herself and her daughter after she herself went to the press in the first place and caused the story to be published.

My instinct says otherwise, but I'm in a generous mood.
Trust your instinct! They are probably watching something they Sky-plussed last night as I type!
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: I'm assuming that because the mother is out of work, she can't afford a computer and that is why she hasn't commented on here to defend herself and her daughter after she herself went to the press in the first place and caused the story to be published. My instinct says otherwise, but I'm in a generous mood.[/p][/quote]Trust your instinct! They are probably watching something they Sky-plussed last night as I type! Sealegs

5:11pm Sun 21 Jul 13

Anyvacancies says...

Be fair the mother is starting to learn, no nail varnish in the Sunday Mirror photo. What she is starting to learn I am not sure. Obviously we need to understand some people are not interested in obeying the rules, while subsidized by the taxpayer.
Be fair the mother is starting to learn, no nail varnish in the Sunday Mirror photo. What she is starting to learn I am not sure. Obviously we need to understand some people are not interested in obeying the rules, while subsidized by the taxpayer. Anyvacancies

5:33pm Sun 21 Jul 13

LSC says...

Sealegs wrote:
LSC wrote:
I'm assuming that because the mother is out of work, she can't afford a computer and that is why she hasn't commented on here to defend herself and her daughter after she herself went to the press in the first place and caused the story to be published.

My instinct says otherwise, but I'm in a generous mood.
Trust your instinct! They are probably watching something they Sky-plussed last night as I type!
No, that can't be right. I work full time, but am not generously paid, so had to give up my car, and I'm a car nut! I do have access to a company vehicle, but it isn't a very practical one.
I also had to give up Sky Sports and Sky Movies, but kept the Discovery stuff.
My telly is very old, and my pay as you go phone is for emergencies only.

I refuse to believe these people are better off than me. I sometimes am working at 3am. I work Sundays often.

I'm a bl**dy mug.
[quote][p][bold]Sealegs[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: I'm assuming that because the mother is out of work, she can't afford a computer and that is why she hasn't commented on here to defend herself and her daughter after she herself went to the press in the first place and caused the story to be published. My instinct says otherwise, but I'm in a generous mood.[/p][/quote]Trust your instinct! They are probably watching something they Sky-plussed last night as I type![/p][/quote]No, that can't be right. I work full time, but am not generously paid, so had to give up my car, and I'm a car nut! I do have access to a company vehicle, but it isn't a very practical one. I also had to give up Sky Sports and Sky Movies, but kept the Discovery stuff. My telly is very old, and my pay as you go phone is for emergencies only. I refuse to believe these people are better off than me. I sometimes am working at 3am. I work Sundays often. I'm a bl**dy mug. LSC

5:52pm Sun 21 Jul 13

Johan_Cruyff says...

The daughter clearly can't behave herself so gets sent home.

What should happen: Mother chastises daughter, punishes her and makes her apologise to the school and others on the trip.

What really happens: Mother fails to accept responsibility for her child's actions and tries to make bad publicity for everyone connected with the school. Arranges for 'angelic' style photo to appear in national press and attacks the school for their behaviour. Has no regard for what her daughters misbehaviours means and does not see it as a reflection on her being a substandard parent.

Welcome to Watford 2013
The daughter clearly can't behave herself so gets sent home. What should happen: Mother chastises daughter, punishes her and makes her apologise to the school and others on the trip. What really happens: Mother fails to accept responsibility for her child's actions and tries to make bad publicity for everyone connected with the school. Arranges for 'angelic' style photo to appear in national press and attacks the school for their behaviour. Has no regard for what her daughters misbehaviours means and does not see it as a reflection on her being a substandard parent. Welcome to Watford 2013 Johan_Cruyff

6:07pm Sun 21 Jul 13

Anyvacancies says...

Good post Johann_Cruyff exactly right, by the way for the person who thought allowances were only 60-70 pounds a week. JSA is currently 71.70 for over 25s , carers allowance is 59.75 per week on average plus any housing benefit. They always have sky and a mobile phone, amazing, and in this case runs a car.
Good post Johann_Cruyff exactly right, by the way for the person who thought allowances were only 60-70 pounds a week. JSA is currently 71.70 for over 25s , carers allowance is 59.75 per week on average plus any housing benefit. They always have sky and a mobile phone, amazing, and in this case runs a car. Anyvacancies

6:09pm Sun 21 Jul 13

notquitethewholestory says...

Johan_Cruyff wrote:
The daughter clearly can't behave herself so gets sent home.

What should happen: Mother chastises daughter, punishes her and makes her apologise to the school and others on the trip.

What really happens: Mother fails to accept responsibility for her child's actions and tries to make bad publicity for everyone connected with the school. Arranges for 'angelic' style photo to appear in national press and attacks the school for their behaviour. Has no regard for what her daughters misbehaviours means and does not see it as a reflection on her being a substandard parent.

Welcome to Watford 2013
It's true. I get fed up with people like mummy_1 trying to defend this type of family / behaviour. My child has spent 6 years in the same class as Holli and my goodness, there have been so many issues. As I previously mentioned but everyone has chosen to ignore, I witnessed first hand mum beating up another mother just outside Bromet - even though the other mother had a baby with her. This is probably why no-one has reported the case - they are too scared. Yes, the charter may well have been drawn up because of the behaviour of Holli McCann - it's happening in a lot of schools because each has a 'Holli McCann' - a child who will never behave in a decent manner because her family don't encourage her to. And yet there are no penalties for such parents and absolutely nothing the school can do. The future scares me - it looks like it will be natural selection - survival of the bolshiest.
[quote][p][bold]Johan_Cruyff[/bold] wrote: The daughter clearly can't behave herself so gets sent home. What should happen: Mother chastises daughter, punishes her and makes her apologise to the school and others on the trip. What really happens: Mother fails to accept responsibility for her child's actions and tries to make bad publicity for everyone connected with the school. Arranges for 'angelic' style photo to appear in national press and attacks the school for their behaviour. Has no regard for what her daughters misbehaviours means and does not see it as a reflection on her being a substandard parent. Welcome to Watford 2013[/p][/quote]It's true. I get fed up with people like mummy_1 trying to defend this type of family / behaviour. My child has spent 6 years in the same class as Holli and my goodness, there have been so many issues. As I previously mentioned but everyone has chosen to ignore, I witnessed first hand mum beating up another mother just outside Bromet - even though the other mother had a baby with her. This is probably why no-one has reported the case - they are too scared. Yes, the charter may well have been drawn up because of the behaviour of Holli McCann - it's happening in a lot of schools because each has a 'Holli McCann' - a child who will never behave in a decent manner because her family don't encourage her to. And yet there are no penalties for such parents and absolutely nothing the school can do. The future scares me - it looks like it will be natural selection - survival of the bolshiest. notquitethewholestory

6:09pm Sun 21 Jul 13

notquitethewholestory says...

Johan_Cruyff wrote:
The daughter clearly can't behave herself so gets sent home.

What should happen: Mother chastises daughter, punishes her and makes her apologise to the school and others on the trip.

What really happens: Mother fails to accept responsibility for her child's actions and tries to make bad publicity for everyone connected with the school. Arranges for 'angelic' style photo to appear in national press and attacks the school for their behaviour. Has no regard for what her daughters misbehaviours means and does not see it as a reflection on her being a substandard parent.

Welcome to Watford 2013
It's true. I get fed up with people like mummy_1 trying to defend this type of family / behaviour. My child has spent 6 years in the same class as Holli and my goodness, there have been so many issues. As I previously mentioned but everyone has chosen to ignore, I witnessed first hand mum beating up another mother just outside Bromet - even though the other mother had a baby with her. This is probably why no-one has reported the case - they are too scared. Yes, the charter may well have been drawn up because of the behaviour of Holli McCann - it's happening in a lot of schools because each has a 'Holli McCann' - a child who will never behave in a decent manner because her family don't encourage her to. And yet there are no penalties for such parents and absolutely nothing the school can do. The future scares me - it looks like it will be natural selection - survival of the bolshiest.
[quote][p][bold]Johan_Cruyff[/bold] wrote: The daughter clearly can't behave herself so gets sent home. What should happen: Mother chastises daughter, punishes her and makes her apologise to the school and others on the trip. What really happens: Mother fails to accept responsibility for her child's actions and tries to make bad publicity for everyone connected with the school. Arranges for 'angelic' style photo to appear in national press and attacks the school for their behaviour. Has no regard for what her daughters misbehaviours means and does not see it as a reflection on her being a substandard parent. Welcome to Watford 2013[/p][/quote]It's true. I get fed up with people like mummy_1 trying to defend this type of family / behaviour. My child has spent 6 years in the same class as Holli and my goodness, there have been so many issues. As I previously mentioned but everyone has chosen to ignore, I witnessed first hand mum beating up another mother just outside Bromet - even though the other mother had a baby with her. This is probably why no-one has reported the case - they are too scared. Yes, the charter may well have been drawn up because of the behaviour of Holli McCann - it's happening in a lot of schools because each has a 'Holli McCann' - a child who will never behave in a decent manner because her family don't encourage her to. And yet there are no penalties for such parents and absolutely nothing the school can do. The future scares me - it looks like it will be natural selection - survival of the bolshiest. notquitethewholestory

8:03pm Sun 21 Jul 13

Sealegs says...

Johan_Cruyff wrote:
The daughter clearly can't behave herself so gets sent home.

What should happen: Mother chastises daughter, punishes her and makes her apologise to the school and others on the trip.

What really happens: Mother fails to accept responsibility for her child's actions and tries to make bad publicity for everyone connected with the school. Arranges for 'angelic' style photo to appear in national press and attacks the school for their behaviour. Has no regard for what her daughters misbehaviours means and does not see it as a reflection on her being a substandard parent.

Welcome to Watford 2013
That's it in a nutshell...
[quote][p][bold]Johan_Cruyff[/bold] wrote: The daughter clearly can't behave herself so gets sent home. What should happen: Mother chastises daughter, punishes her and makes her apologise to the school and others on the trip. What really happens: Mother fails to accept responsibility for her child's actions and tries to make bad publicity for everyone connected with the school. Arranges for 'angelic' style photo to appear in national press and attacks the school for their behaviour. Has no regard for what her daughters misbehaviours means and does not see it as a reflection on her being a substandard parent. Welcome to Watford 2013[/p][/quote]That's it in a nutshell... Sealegs

8:38pm Sun 21 Jul 13

Let`s`aveitright says...

Why does `mental` go after `judge`?

I wonder why the mother didn`t just punch the headmistress in the face, instead of telling the Watford Observer to vent her anger 3 weeks later. I suppose she was having panic attacks for three weeks before plucking up the courage to walk to the public telephone booth to call Watford Observer and `sell` her story! I shall be looking out for her on the next Jeremy Kyle Show, perhaps `Bella` magazine will give her fifty quid for the story too.
(being from a family of criminals, they were most likely out mugging a little old lady)
I would think the McCanns do have a computer because the government gave them out free to people on benefits because they are considered a necessity, not a luxury these days, in contrast to the days of `Oliver Twist` before the long campaign for child equality. (Maybe some folk think we should bring back the cane?) Children in modern times need to use a computer for doing homework.
For any youngsters reading this post and for those still living in the distant past; televisions, land-line telephones and cars also used to be luxury items however in modern times they are now considered necessities. (should we bring back the days of locking-up single mothers in mental institutions?)
Let`s all outcast the most vulnerable in our society, for it is very constructive.
KEEP SPREADING THE LOVE
Why does `mental` go after `judge`? I wonder why the mother didn`t just punch the headmistress in the face, instead of telling the Watford Observer to vent her anger 3 weeks later. I suppose she was having panic attacks for three weeks before plucking up the courage to walk to the public telephone booth to call Watford Observer and `sell` her story! I shall be looking out for her on the next Jeremy Kyle Show, perhaps `Bella` magazine will give her fifty quid for the story too. (being from a family of criminals, they were most likely out mugging a little old lady) I would think the McCanns do have a computer because the government gave them out free to people on benefits because they are considered a necessity, not a luxury these days, in contrast to the days of `Oliver Twist` before the long campaign for child equality. (Maybe some folk think we should bring back the cane?) Children in modern times need to use a computer for doing homework. For any youngsters reading this post and for those still living in the distant past; televisions, land-line telephones and cars also used to be luxury items however in modern times they are now considered necessities. (should we bring back the days of locking-up single mothers in mental institutions?) Let`s all outcast the most vulnerable in our society, for it is very constructive. KEEP SPREADING THE LOVE Let`s`aveitright

8:43pm Sun 21 Jul 13

Let`s`aveitright says...

I reckon the headmistress `fitted up` Holli McCann by planting her own chocolate stash in Hollis bag!
I reckon the headmistress `fitted up` Holli McCann by planting her own chocolate stash in Hollis bag! Let`s`aveitright

9:42pm Sun 21 Jul 13

LSC says...

@Let`s`aveitright
"Children in modern times need to use a computer for doing homework."

Well they shouldn't. Cut and paste from Wikki is not homework and the reason why exams, even degrees, are not taken seriously these days. By employers, like me.

"For any youngsters reading this post and for those still living in the distant past; televisions, land-line telephones and cars also used to be luxury items however in modern times they are now considered necessities."

I'm not living in the past. I'm right here right now typing to you. It is a luxury to do so. Not a right, and if I didn't work my a**e off everyday I wouldn't expect to be able to do so. My computer is an expensive one. My broadband the best around.
I paid every penny myself, while still paying taxes to those who do naff all for the same stuff.
@Let`s`aveitright "Children in modern times need to use a computer for doing homework." Well they shouldn't. Cut and paste from Wikki is not homework and the reason why exams, even degrees, are not taken seriously these days. By employers, like me. "For any youngsters reading this post and for those still living in the distant past; televisions, land-line telephones and cars also used to be luxury items however in modern times they are now considered necessities." I'm not living in the past. I'm right here right now typing to you. It is a luxury to do so. Not a right, and if I didn't work my a**e off everyday I wouldn't expect to be able to do so. My computer is an expensive one. My broadband the best around. I paid every penny myself, while still paying taxes to those who do naff all for the same stuff. LSC

9:58pm Sun 21 Jul 13

Let`s`aveitright says...

Anyvacancies wrote:
There is not the slightest chance Ms McCann only gets between 60 to 70 pounds benefit a week Lets Aveitright, I think we have the balance of opinion is in favour of the headteacher.
This is EXACTLY the sort of small mindedness I would expect to find on a school playground!!

You think! I checked!

11 in favour of the headmistress

16 strongly against the headmistress

30 UNSPECIFIC IN SCORING `BROWNIE POINTS` for the headmistress!
[quote][p][bold]Anyvacancies[/bold] wrote: There is not the slightest chance Ms McCann only gets between 60 to 70 pounds benefit a week Lets Aveitright, I think we have the balance of opinion is in favour of the headteacher.[/p][/quote]This is EXACTLY the sort of small mindedness I would expect to find on a school playground!! You think! I checked! 11 in favour of the headmistress 16 strongly against the headmistress 30 UNSPECIFIC IN SCORING `BROWNIE POINTS` for the headmistress! Let`s`aveitright

10:10pm Sun 21 Jul 13

Let`s`aveitright says...

LSC wrote:
@Let`s`aveitright
"Children in modern times need to use a computer for doing homework."

Well they shouldn't. Cut and paste from Wikki is not homework and the reason why exams, even degrees, are not taken seriously these days. By employers, like me.

"For any youngsters reading this post and for those still living in the distant past; televisions, land-line telephones and cars also used to be luxury items however in modern times they are now considered necessities."

I'm not living in the past. I'm right here right now typing to you. It is a luxury to do so. Not a right, and if I didn't work my a**e off everyday I wouldn't expect to be able to do so. My computer is an expensive one. My broadband the best around.
I paid every penny myself, while still paying taxes to those who do naff all for the same stuff.
I also work hard everyday but I do not think that scarring children with feelings of anger and casting them out of society is the way forward, nor a constructive foundation for the communities of our future.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: @Let`s`aveitright "Children in modern times need to use a computer for doing homework." Well they shouldn't. Cut and paste from Wikki is not homework and the reason why exams, even degrees, are not taken seriously these days. By employers, like me. "For any youngsters reading this post and for those still living in the distant past; televisions, land-line telephones and cars also used to be luxury items however in modern times they are now considered necessities." I'm not living in the past. I'm right here right now typing to you. It is a luxury to do so. Not a right, and if I didn't work my a**e off everyday I wouldn't expect to be able to do so. My computer is an expensive one. My broadband the best around. I paid every penny myself, while still paying taxes to those who do naff all for the same stuff.[/p][/quote]I also work hard everyday but I do not think that scarring children with feelings of anger and casting them out of society is the way forward, nor a constructive foundation for the communities of our future. Let`s`aveitright

10:20pm Sun 21 Jul 13

Let`s`aveitright says...

angryangryangry wrote:
"to ensure that everyone can have a safe and enjoyable holiday" - was she not trying to have an enjoyable holiday by eating a bit of chocolate with her mates?

OK,we do not know what the "naughtiness" on the beach involved, but if it was that bad then surely they would not have waited for "chocolategate" to erupt before sending her home! Think it seems on face value to be very harsh. Even the fact that they were not allowed chocolate seems harsh. Were they prisoners or school children? Prisoners would be allowed to have it so why not our good children!?!?
Oh how the mind boggles!
I heard from one of the other children on the trip that "misbehaving on the beach" was.................
......... Holli putting her head under the water!
[quote][p][bold]angryangryangry[/bold] wrote: "to ensure that everyone can have a safe and enjoyable holiday" - was she not trying to have an enjoyable holiday by eating a bit of chocolate with her mates? OK,we do not know what the "naughtiness" on the beach involved, but if it was that bad then surely they would not have waited for "chocolategate" to erupt before sending her home! Think it seems on face value to be very harsh. Even the fact that they were not allowed chocolate seems harsh. Were they prisoners or school children? Prisoners would be allowed to have it so why not our good children!?!?[/p][/quote]Oh how the mind boggles! I heard from one of the other children on the trip that "misbehaving on the beach" was................. ......... Holli putting her head under the water! Let`s`aveitright

10:32pm Sun 21 Jul 13

Let`s`aveitright says...

miss_caz wrote:
Both of my children went to this school and on the IOW trip, we were basically told if we did not sign the behaviour charter then our children could not go.... I am not surprised that this has happened when my eldest started there was a different head she was strict approachable and always had time for parents. When she left and Mrs Graves took over the school went downhill. I know of numerous parents over the years who have had issues with her and her reaction to this girl comes as no surprise to me.

Maybe its time for a change of head there
Couldn`t agree with this more miss-caz!

Such a shame because Bromet School was once a real gem in our community.

It will be interesting to hear what people have got to say about the headmistress and what goes on at that School once Mrs Graves is no longer in her powerful position!
Let the opening of the can of worms commence...
[quote][p][bold]miss_caz[/bold] wrote: Both of my children went to this school and on the IOW trip, we were basically told if we did not sign the behaviour charter then our children could not go.... I am not surprised that this has happened when my eldest started there was a different head she was strict approachable and always had time for parents. When she left and Mrs Graves took over the school went downhill. I know of numerous parents over the years who have had issues with her and her reaction to this girl comes as no surprise to me. Maybe its time for a change of head there[/p][/quote]Couldn`t agree with this more miss-caz! Such a shame because Bromet School was once a real gem in our community. It will be interesting to hear what people have got to say about the headmistress and what goes on at that School once Mrs Graves is no longer in her powerful position! Let the opening of the can of worms commence... Let`s`aveitright

11:30pm Sun 21 Jul 13

Free-at-last says...

I am a parent at Bromet in the current year 6. Aside from the rights and wrongs of this particular issue, I am very interested to read of the many other parents who have critisisms of the head. On the two occasions I needed to discuss concerns with her, I was met with rudeness and unprofessionalism. Complaining to the governors is futile, as one of them is her husband (which I consider to be unethical) and others have been there for many years and appear to support her regardless of the nature of the complaint.
I feel that maybe parents are using this forum to vent their spleens as their concerns or not being dealt with by the conventional routes.



I have the utmost respect for the teaching and support staff, however
I am a parent at Bromet in the current year 6. Aside from the rights and wrongs of this particular issue, I am very interested to read of the many other parents who have critisisms of the head. On the two occasions I needed to discuss concerns with her, I was met with rudeness and unprofessionalism. Complaining to the governors is futile, as one of them is her husband (which I consider to be unethical) and others have been there for many years and appear to support her regardless of the nature of the complaint. I feel that maybe parents are using this forum to vent their spleens as their concerns or not being dealt with by the conventional routes. I have the utmost respect for the teaching and support staff, however Free-at-last

11:34pm Sun 21 Jul 13

Hand of Destiny says...

Let`s`aveitright wrote:
miss_caz wrote:
Both of my children went to this school and on the IOW trip, we were basically told if we did not sign the behaviour charter then our children could not go.... I am not surprised that this has happened when my eldest started there was a different head she was strict approachable and always had time for parents. When she left and Mrs Graves took over the school went downhill. I know of numerous parents over the years who have had issues with her and her reaction to this girl comes as no surprise to me.

Maybe its time for a change of head there
Couldn`t agree with this more miss-caz!

Such a shame because Bromet School was once a real gem in our community.

It will be interesting to hear what people have got to say about the headmistress and what goes on at that School once Mrs Graves is no longer in her powerful position!
Let the opening of the can of worms commence...
My child is leaving Bromet School this week. I am quite happy they have enjoyed a very good standard education by very focused and caring teachers under a fair, firm and conscientious head teacher. I applaud the way she handled the issue of sending home a disruptive pupil who has frankly been a pain in the backside of everyone at Bromet for years. Well Done Mrs Graves
[quote][p][bold]Let`s`aveitright[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]miss_caz[/bold] wrote: Both of my children went to this school and on the IOW trip, we were basically told if we did not sign the behaviour charter then our children could not go.... I am not surprised that this has happened when my eldest started there was a different head she was strict approachable and always had time for parents. When she left and Mrs Graves took over the school went downhill. I know of numerous parents over the years who have had issues with her and her reaction to this girl comes as no surprise to me. Maybe its time for a change of head there[/p][/quote]Couldn`t agree with this more miss-caz! Such a shame because Bromet School was once a real gem in our community. It will be interesting to hear what people have got to say about the headmistress and what goes on at that School once Mrs Graves is no longer in her powerful position! Let the opening of the can of worms commence...[/p][/quote]My child is leaving Bromet School this week. I am quite happy they have enjoyed a very good standard education by very focused and caring teachers under a fair, firm and conscientious head teacher. I applaud the way she handled the issue of sending home a disruptive pupil who has frankly been a pain in the backside of everyone at Bromet for years. Well Done Mrs Graves Hand of Destiny

6:56am Mon 22 Jul 13

Sealegs says...

Let`s`aveitright wrote:
Anyvacancies wrote:
There is not the slightest chance Ms McCann only gets between 60 to 70 pounds benefit a week Lets Aveitright, I think we have the balance of opinion is in favour of the headteacher.
This is EXACTLY the sort of small mindedness I would expect to find on a school playground!!

You think! I checked!

11 in favour of the headmistress

16 strongly against the headmistress

30 UNSPECIFIC IN SCORING `BROWNIE POINTS` for the headmistress!
Empty barrels.
[quote][p][bold]Let`s`aveitright[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Anyvacancies[/bold] wrote: There is not the slightest chance Ms McCann only gets between 60 to 70 pounds benefit a week Lets Aveitright, I think we have the balance of opinion is in favour of the headteacher.[/p][/quote]This is EXACTLY the sort of small mindedness I would expect to find on a school playground!! You think! I checked! 11 in favour of the headmistress 16 strongly against the headmistress 30 UNSPECIFIC IN SCORING `BROWNIE POINTS` for the headmistress![/p][/quote]Empty barrels. Sealegs

2:11pm Mon 22 Jul 13

lolums2000 says...

Story does not give a full picture. A charter is signed by parent and child before going on trip, there is also a meeting at the school before trip which also states the rules. The rule is set by the Guest House owner as they have lots of school trips staying there and cannot replace items/redecorate every time things get messed up by students treading chocolate into carpets etc. This rule is just set for in their rooms, the school pays for them to have ice creams, candy floss, treats when out on trips so not hard done by in any way. There are limited teachers to children as with every school outing so children asked not to enter sea as they cannot watch all at once. Holli chose to ignore this and not only just paddled but entered to over her waist height, which I'm sure her mother would be complaining about teachers if something terrible had happened, but again she chose to ignore the rules. When asked about the chocolate she lied and believe me there was not just one finger of fudge as reported in some papers. Daughter doesn't follow rules, but then only learns from mother who brought and packed the midnight feast for her. She was allowed to stay but would need to be with the head teacher as she was continually breaking rules for her own safety (apparently other incidents on the trip, but cannot comment as do not know). Mother had chose to pick her up, like she chose to break the rules and then chose to complain. I wonder how much money all her stories got her........ As said in earlier comments there have been issues at the school with the head and these should be addressed on own merit, but this is a very unfair way for parents to try and change the running of the school as I truly believe the wrong doing was on the part of the student and her mother. When she leaves school and steals a car is that ok because she needed a car, no. Teach your kids rules are rules, we have to follow them as adults no matter how we feel about them otherwise its mayhem. Teachers/support staff etc excellent and this should not reflect on the school as a whole.
Story does not give a full picture. A charter is signed by parent and child before going on trip, there is also a meeting at the school before trip which also states the rules. The rule is set by the Guest House owner as they have lots of school trips staying there and cannot replace items/redecorate every time things get messed up by students treading chocolate into carpets etc. This rule is just set for in their rooms, the school pays for them to have ice creams, candy floss, treats when out on trips so not hard done by in any way. There are limited teachers to children as with every school outing so children asked not to enter sea as they cannot watch all at once. Holli chose to ignore this and not only just paddled but entered to over her waist height, which I'm sure her mother would be complaining about teachers if something terrible had happened, but again she chose to ignore the rules. When asked about the chocolate she lied and believe me there was not just one finger of fudge as reported in some papers. Daughter doesn't follow rules, but then only learns from mother who brought and packed the midnight feast for her. She was allowed to stay but would need to be with the head teacher as she was continually breaking rules for her own safety (apparently other incidents on the trip, but cannot comment as do not know). Mother had chose to pick her up, like she chose to break the rules and then chose to complain. I wonder how much money all her stories got her........ As said in earlier comments there have been issues at the school with the head and these should be addressed on own merit, but this is a very unfair way for parents to try and change the running of the school as I truly believe the wrong doing was on the part of the student and her mother. When she leaves school and steals a car is that ok because she needed a car, no. Teach your kids rules are rules, we have to follow them as adults no matter how we feel about them otherwise its mayhem. Teachers/support staff etc excellent and this should not reflect on the school as a whole. lolums2000

3:09pm Mon 22 Jul 13

LSC says...

This story just gets odder and odder. I only know what I read on here and the comments that followed. I don't know the people or the school, and I haven't read the Nationals.

This appears to be a simple holiday, not some form of educational trip, which is fine.

But to take children to a beach and not allow them to go near the water? What is the point of that? If you can't police it safely, then don't do it at all!

I don't know the kids, but some of them might have never seen the sea in real life before. Do they think 11 year olds will look but not want to touch? They should know kids better than I do, but I was one once and on my school trips midnight feasts with my friends were one of the reasons for going!

I wasn't badly behaved by any measure, but I doubt I'd have lasted an hour under these rules.
This story just gets odder and odder. I only know what I read on here and the comments that followed. I don't know the people or the school, and I haven't read the Nationals. This appears to be a simple holiday, not some form of educational trip, which is fine. But to take children to a beach and not allow them to go near the water? What is the point of that? If you can't police it safely, then don't do it at all! I don't know the kids, but some of them might have never seen the sea in real life before. Do they think 11 year olds will look but not want to touch? They should know kids better than I do, but I was one once and on my school trips midnight feasts with my friends were one of the reasons for going! I wasn't badly behaved by any measure, but I doubt I'd have lasted an hour under these rules. LSC

3:42pm Mon 22 Jul 13

Linda Geddes says...

LSC wrote:
This story just gets odder and odder. I only know what I read on here and the comments that followed. I don't know the people or the school, and I haven't read the Nationals. This appears to be a simple holiday, not some form of educational trip, which is fine. But to take children to a beach and not allow them to go near the water? What is the point of that? If you can't police it safely, then don't do it at all! I don't know the kids, but some of them might have never seen the sea in real life before. Do they think 11 year olds will look but not want to touch? They should know kids better than I do, but I was one once and on my school trips midnight feasts with my friends were one of the reasons for going! I wasn't badly behaved by any measure, but I doubt I'd have lasted an hour under these rules.
Perhaps in your day parents weren't quite so ready to sue at the drop of a hat. These days teachers are damned if they do and damned if they don't!

As previous posters have said, rules are rules and this parent agreed to them beforehand, so why teach her child that it is ok to lie and break rules?

I don't know all the facts but that one has come through loud and clear.

I would not like to be a teacher these days as it is too easy to be pilloried in local & national press and on forums like this.

If the parent had any consideration for her daughter she should have taken this matter up directly with the school and not gone to the press.
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: This story just gets odder and odder. I only know what I read on here and the comments that followed. I don't know the people or the school, and I haven't read the Nationals. This appears to be a simple holiday, not some form of educational trip, which is fine. But to take children to a beach and not allow them to go near the water? What is the point of that? If you can't police it safely, then don't do it at all! I don't know the kids, but some of them might have never seen the sea in real life before. Do they think 11 year olds will look but not want to touch? They should know kids better than I do, but I was one once and on my school trips midnight feasts with my friends were one of the reasons for going! I wasn't badly behaved by any measure, but I doubt I'd have lasted an hour under these rules.[/p][/quote]Perhaps in your day parents weren't quite so ready to sue at the drop of a hat. These days teachers are damned if they do and damned if they don't! As previous posters have said, rules are rules and this parent agreed to them beforehand, so why teach her child that it is ok to lie and break rules? I don't know all the facts but that one has come through loud and clear. I would not like to be a teacher these days as it is too easy to be pilloried in local & national press and on forums like this. If the parent had any consideration for her daughter she should have taken this matter up directly with the school and not gone to the press. Linda Geddes

4:07pm Mon 22 Jul 13

LSC says...

I can't argue with any of that Linda.
It is a shame, nonetheless, and the real losers are the children.
I can't argue with any of that Linda. It is a shame, nonetheless, and the real losers are the children. LSC

4:54pm Mon 22 Jul 13

angryangryangry says...

Let`s`aveitright wrote:
angryangryangry wrote:
"to ensure that everyone can have a safe and enjoyable holiday" - was she not trying to have an enjoyable holiday by eating a bit of chocolate with her mates?

OK,we do not know what the "naughtiness" on the beach involved, but if it was that bad then surely they would not have waited for "chocolategate" to erupt before sending her home! Think it seems on face value to be very harsh. Even the fact that they were not allowed chocolate seems harsh. Were they prisoners or school children? Prisoners would be allowed to have it so why not our good children!?!?
Oh how the mind boggles!
I heard from one of the other children on the trip that "misbehaving on the beach" was.................

......... Holli putting her head under the water!
Holli putting her head under the water? Was that her own head or another child's? If it were the latter then good send her home as this is dangerous and bullying. If it were her own....by all accounts it sounds like a shame that she didnt keep it there!
[quote][p][bold]Let`s`aveitright[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]angryangryangry[/bold] wrote: "to ensure that everyone can have a safe and enjoyable holiday" - was she not trying to have an enjoyable holiday by eating a bit of chocolate with her mates? OK,we do not know what the "naughtiness" on the beach involved, but if it was that bad then surely they would not have waited for "chocolategate" to erupt before sending her home! Think it seems on face value to be very harsh. Even the fact that they were not allowed chocolate seems harsh. Were they prisoners or school children? Prisoners would be allowed to have it so why not our good children!?!?[/p][/quote]Oh how the mind boggles! I heard from one of the other children on the trip that "misbehaving on the beach" was................. ......... Holli putting her head under the water![/p][/quote]Holli putting her head under the water? Was that her own head or another child's? If it were the latter then good send her home as this is dangerous and bullying. If it were her own....by all accounts it sounds like a shame that she didnt keep it there! angryangryangry

5:23pm Mon 22 Jul 13

lolums2000 says...

Apologies not worded well, by enter sea I meant as to swim, they could paddle but for very obvious reasons its dangerous to go deeper which they were told not to do, but she did. My point was another rule broken its not just a simple chocolate bar. There are always accidents involved with the sea and children/adults being out of depth or freak accidents it would have been irresponsible to let them go deep into the water. My child went on this trip, they are strong swimmer, but at 11 would not want or expect school to be responsible for them being any deeper than paddling in the sea. I totally agree with last comment its a shame for all children on the trip including Holli. This will follow her to senior school, and she's missed out on making memories of last weeks with her friends at junior school and everything they are involved in.
Apologies not worded well, by enter sea I meant as to swim, they could paddle but for very obvious reasons its dangerous to go deeper which they were told not to do, but she did. My point was another rule broken its not just a simple chocolate bar. There are always accidents involved with the sea and children/adults being out of depth or freak accidents it would have been irresponsible to let them go deep into the water. My child went on this trip, they are strong swimmer, but at 11 would not want or expect school to be responsible for them being any deeper than paddling in the sea. I totally agree with last comment its a shame for all children on the trip including Holli. This will follow her to senior school, and she's missed out on making memories of last weeks with her friends at junior school and everything they are involved in. lolums2000

10:25pm Mon 22 Jul 13

Anyvacancies says...

Sealegs you agree on the benefits then as you only answered 1 of the questions!
Sealegs you agree on the benefits then as you only answered 1 of the questions! Anyvacancies

10:36pm Mon 22 Jul 13

nannyannie says...

Let`s`aveitright wrote:
Why does `mental` go after `judge`?

I wonder why the mother didn`t just punch the headmistress in the face, instead of telling the Watford Observer to vent her anger 3 weeks later. I suppose she was having panic attacks for three weeks before plucking up the courage to walk to the public telephone booth to call Watford Observer and `sell` her story! I shall be looking out for her on the next Jeremy Kyle Show, perhaps `Bella` magazine will give her fifty quid for the story too.
(being from a family of criminals, they were most likely out mugging a little old lady)
I would think the McCanns do have a computer because the government gave them out free to people on benefits because they are considered a necessity, not a luxury these days, in contrast to the days of `Oliver Twist` before the long campaign for child equality. (Maybe some folk think we should bring back the cane?) Children in modern times need to use a computer for doing homework.
For any youngsters reading this post and for those still living in the distant past; televisions, land-line telephones and cars also used to be luxury items however in modern times they are now considered necessities. (should we bring back the days of locking-up single mothers in mental institutions?)
Let`s all outcast the most vulnerable in our society, for it is very constructive.
KEEP SPREADING THE LOVE
in reply to let'saveitright i am a McCann and i can only say you do not know us very well luv. I have to wonder about your track record when your opening statement suggests the teacher gets a punch in the face, you then go on to say your gonna be watching out for the jeremy kyle show so that suggests you dont work either if you got time to sit on front of the telly watching that crap. As for a family of criminals out mugging an old lady you got your facts all wrong. If you look into the whole family you will find that we dont claim benefits, we work and always have done. We pay our taxes and always have done and those of us with a computer did buy it not get it through a free handout!!! And as for Kerri McCann we do not have anything at all to do with her and hav'nt done for years that should tell you something and that goes for the whole McCann family!!!
[quote][p][bold]Let`s`aveitright[/bold] wrote: Why does `mental` go after `judge`? I wonder why the mother didn`t just punch the headmistress in the face, instead of telling the Watford Observer to vent her anger 3 weeks later. I suppose she was having panic attacks for three weeks before plucking up the courage to walk to the public telephone booth to call Watford Observer and `sell` her story! I shall be looking out for her on the next Jeremy Kyle Show, perhaps `Bella` magazine will give her fifty quid for the story too. (being from a family of criminals, they were most likely out mugging a little old lady) I would think the McCanns do have a computer because the government gave them out free to people on benefits because they are considered a necessity, not a luxury these days, in contrast to the days of `Oliver Twist` before the long campaign for child equality. (Maybe some folk think we should bring back the cane?) Children in modern times need to use a computer for doing homework. For any youngsters reading this post and for those still living in the distant past; televisions, land-line telephones and cars also used to be luxury items however in modern times they are now considered necessities. (should we bring back the days of locking-up single mothers in mental institutions?) Let`s all outcast the most vulnerable in our society, for it is very constructive. KEEP SPREADING THE LOVE[/p][/quote]in reply to let'saveitright i am a McCann and i can only say you do not know us very well luv. I have to wonder about your track record when your opening statement suggests the teacher gets a punch in the face, you then go on to say your gonna be watching out for the jeremy kyle show so that suggests you dont work either if you got time to sit on front of the telly watching that crap. As for a family of criminals out mugging an old lady you got your facts all wrong. If you look into the whole family you will find that we dont claim benefits, we work and always have done. We pay our taxes and always have done and those of us with a computer did buy it not get it through a free handout!!! And as for Kerri McCann we do not have anything at all to do with her and hav'nt done for years that should tell you something and that goes for the whole McCann family!!! nannyannie

12:30am Tue 23 Jul 13

Let`s`aveitright says...

harrow resident wrote:
Shameful behaviour of Ms McCann for bringing such a brilliant school into disrepute and furthering by involving the National media (every dam newspaper .
Allowing her so called 19yr old autistic son to sort his sisters school friends out.
Allowing her daughter to break school rules (joint enterprise) and her bad behaviour.
What ever ,Ms McCann has ruined her daughters academic years as her school reports will follow where this creature goes (politely her little ****).
Mum appears to be some what of a Bully the same said for her brothers..Martin McCann selling stories (constant **** ) to the media,suing David Beckham for 5million, Mitch Winehouse (Amy Winehouses father) robbing them of the Amy Winehouse Foundation name,when he hasn't got two bob to rub together.
Oh yes lovely people not.
One ponders,do they get paid for there stories in the paper ?( must be the craze to top up there benefits).
How ever Mrs Gravers and her dedicated staff GOOD LUCK in this complaint ,your onto a winner 99% parents and students at Bromet back you.good riddance to trouble makers
Annie it was pure sarcasm based not on facts but on the derogatory comments other posters have written about your family. Apologies for any offence.
[quote][p][bold]harrow resident[/bold] wrote: Shameful behaviour of Ms McCann for bringing such a brilliant school into disrepute and furthering by involving the National media (every dam newspaper . Allowing her so called 19yr old autistic son to sort his sisters school friends out. Allowing her daughter to break school rules (joint enterprise) and her bad behaviour. What ever ,Ms McCann has ruined her daughters academic years as her school reports will follow where this creature goes (politely her little ****). Mum appears to be some what of a Bully the same said for her brothers..Martin McCann selling stories (constant **** ) to the media,suing David Beckham for 5million, Mitch Winehouse (Amy Winehouses father) robbing them of the Amy Winehouse Foundation name,when he hasn't got two bob to rub together. Oh yes lovely people not. One ponders,do they get paid for there stories in the paper ?( must be the craze to top up there benefits). How ever Mrs Gravers and her dedicated staff GOOD LUCK in this complaint ,your onto a winner 99% parents and students at Bromet back you.good riddance to trouble makers[/p][/quote]Annie it was pure sarcasm based not on facts but on the derogatory comments other posters have written about your family. Apologies for any offence. Let`s`aveitright

1:06am Tue 23 Jul 13

Traveller Tom McD says...

Sounds to me like an out of her league trashy mother blaming a perfectly good school for her own failings as a mother. She should teach her brat to obey school rules just like every other pupil, if the rules are no confectionary then thats the rules you stick to. Simple
Sounds to me like an out of her league trashy mother blaming a perfectly good school for her own failings as a mother. She should teach her brat to obey school rules just like every other pupil, if the rules are no confectionary then thats the rules you stick to. Simple Traveller Tom McD

7:42am Tue 23 Jul 13

mummy_1 says...

Regardless of how good or bad a parent Ms Mccan is, if Holli is as 'bad' as many of these posts suggests, they have not dealt with the situation for 6 years and hid behind The Hotel rules to hand-out retribution as the knew Holli would be leaving soon. It was cowardly and unfair to Holli. If this was a Y5 trip no way would The Head have taken such a decision.

Secondly I would like to know why the other girls were not given the same punishement?

Thirdly would anyone else on that trip like to admit their children also took snacks?

Would love to know which Hotel it is as treading chocloate into carpet is alot less 'messy' than some of the 'mess' adult residents would leave behind. Most school turn a blind eye to midnight snacks as it is expected and a harmless 'rule break'. . .
Regardless of how good or bad a parent Ms Mccan is, if Holli is as 'bad' as many of these posts suggests, they have not dealt with the situation for 6 years and hid behind The Hotel rules to hand-out retribution as the knew Holli would be leaving soon. It was cowardly and unfair to Holli. If this was a Y5 trip no way would The Head have taken such a decision. Secondly I would like to know why the other girls were not given the same punishement? Thirdly would anyone else on that trip like to admit their children also took snacks? Would love to know which Hotel it is as treading chocloate into carpet is alot less 'messy' than some of the 'mess' adult residents would leave behind. Most school turn a blind eye to midnight snacks as it is expected and a harmless 'rule break'. . . mummy_1

9:25am Tue 23 Jul 13

garston tony says...

So in a nutshell, this kid is a well know trouble maker whose broken the clearly laid out and agreed rules on this trip putting her own safety in danger and potentially causing trouble between the school and the place they are staying. And people are backing the mother why exactly?

The head could be the most horrible person in the world it doesnt change the above nor my opinion that it was right to ask for the kid to be removed. The fact that opinion on the head is divided makes me wonder if those that dont like her fall into the same 'its everyone fault but mine' category of this kids mother?

And we have a hint that possibly the mother is telling porkies and it was her own decision to go and pick her daughter up.

Whether the school or the mother are right or wrong its disgusting to push the daughter out into the media limelight like this, the consequences of that as the reaction shows is far far worse than being sent home from a trip (even if her daugher was a little angel she'd be getting adverse reaction) and to so publicly attack the school knowing they cant respond is wrong too especially when even in the mothers own version of events there is obvsiously far more to this than meets the eye.
So in a nutshell, this kid is a well know trouble maker whose broken the clearly laid out and agreed rules on this trip putting her own safety in danger and potentially causing trouble between the school and the place they are staying. And people are backing the mother why exactly? The head could be the most horrible person in the world it doesnt change the above nor my opinion that it was right to ask for the kid to be removed. The fact that opinion on the head is divided makes me wonder if those that dont like her fall into the same 'its everyone fault but mine' category of this kids mother? And we have a hint that possibly the mother is telling porkies and it was her own decision to go and pick her daughter up. Whether the school or the mother are right or wrong its disgusting to push the daughter out into the media limelight like this, the consequences of that as the reaction shows is far far worse than being sent home from a trip (even if her daugher was a little angel she'd be getting adverse reaction) and to so publicly attack the school knowing they cant respond is wrong too especially when even in the mothers own version of events there is obvsiously far more to this than meets the eye. garston tony

9:33am Tue 23 Jul 13

garston tony says...

mummy_1 wrote:
Regardless of how good or bad a parent Ms Mccan is, if Holli is as 'bad' as many of these posts suggests, they have not dealt with the situation for 6 years and hid behind The Hotel rules to hand-out retribution as the knew Holli would be leaving soon. It was cowardly and unfair to Holli. If this was a Y5 trip no way would The Head have taken such a decision. Secondly I would like to know why the other girls were not given the same punishement? Thirdly would anyone else on that trip like to admit their children also took snacks? Would love to know which Hotel it is as treading chocloate into carpet is alot less 'messy' than some of the 'mess' adult residents would leave behind. Most school turn a blind eye to midnight snacks as it is expected and a harmless 'rule break'. . .
The school can only tackle the problem if the parents are supporting them. If they are trying to address poor behaviour but the parent does nothing at best or supports their kid at worse then nothing is going to change is it?

Believe it or not its not the schools job to instill good behaviour and discipline into children, those traits are the parents responsibility and children should start school already exhibiting them.

Saddly it seems all too often too many parents dont actually parent and expect schools to do everything for them. I've teacher friends who are increasingly seeing kids starting reception class not potty trained, unable to feed themselves, occassionally barely able to talk and certainly more poorly behaved. The reaction from parents is more often than not to refuse to do anything about it and blame the school.

The other girls may not have been given the same punishement as they didnt put themselves in danger on the beach the day before (or maybe if what we are now meant to believe is true their parents didnt choose of their own accord to remove their kids from the trip)
[quote][p][bold]mummy_1[/bold] wrote: Regardless of how good or bad a parent Ms Mccan is, if Holli is as 'bad' as many of these posts suggests, they have not dealt with the situation for 6 years and hid behind The Hotel rules to hand-out retribution as the knew Holli would be leaving soon. It was cowardly and unfair to Holli. If this was a Y5 trip no way would The Head have taken such a decision. Secondly I would like to know why the other girls were not given the same punishement? Thirdly would anyone else on that trip like to admit their children also took snacks? Would love to know which Hotel it is as treading chocloate into carpet is alot less 'messy' than some of the 'mess' adult residents would leave behind. Most school turn a blind eye to midnight snacks as it is expected and a harmless 'rule break'. . .[/p][/quote]The school can only tackle the problem if the parents are supporting them. If they are trying to address poor behaviour but the parent does nothing at best or supports their kid at worse then nothing is going to change is it? Believe it or not its not the schools job to instill good behaviour and discipline into children, those traits are the parents responsibility and children should start school already exhibiting them. Saddly it seems all too often too many parents dont actually parent and expect schools to do everything for them. I've teacher friends who are increasingly seeing kids starting reception class not potty trained, unable to feed themselves, occassionally barely able to talk and certainly more poorly behaved. The reaction from parents is more often than not to refuse to do anything about it and blame the school. The other girls may not have been given the same punishement as they didnt put themselves in danger on the beach the day before (or maybe if what we are now meant to believe is true their parents didnt choose of their own accord to remove their kids from the trip) garston tony

9:39am Tue 23 Jul 13

Let`s`aveitright says...

Does Mrs Graves still ask all the parents to send their children into School with donations of chocolates and other luxury food items at Harvest Festival time, to be donated to a rather wealthy and not atall needy private care home? My child claims that the staff at Bromet School were eating the parents` donations in the staff room!
Does Mrs Graves still ask all the parents to send their children into School with donations of chocolates and other luxury food items at Harvest Festival time, to be donated to a rather wealthy and not atall needy private care home? My child claims that the staff at Bromet School were eating the parents` donations in the staff room! Let`s`aveitright

10:05am Tue 23 Jul 13

Let`s`aveitright says...

The one thing that seriously concerns me about this issue is that Yvonne Graves ordered the children to write letters to their parents after the first night. SHE THEN OPENED A SEALED ENVELOPE to see what had been written. THIS IS EXACTLY HOW INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE HAS BEEN COVERED UP IN ENGLAND FOR SO MANY GENERATIONS.
The one thing that seriously concerns me about this issue is that Yvonne Graves ordered the children to write letters to their parents after the first night. SHE THEN OPENED A SEALED ENVELOPE to see what had been written. THIS IS EXACTLY HOW INSTITUTIONAL ABUSE HAS BEEN COVERED UP IN ENGLAND FOR SO MANY GENERATIONS. Let`s`aveitright

11:46am Tue 23 Jul 13

MarsLander says...

Some rules are made to be broken.

Some rules are stupid.

Some stupid people make rules.

A fact of modern life, particularly with the "elf 'n' safety" mentality pervading from 13 years of Labour rule and political correctness to the point of abject stupidity.

Time for a bit of common sense and a few less rules.
Some rules are made to be broken. Some rules are stupid. Some stupid people make rules. A fact of modern life, particularly with the "elf 'n' safety" mentality pervading from 13 years of Labour rule and political correctness to the point of abject stupidity. Time for a bit of common sense and a few less rules. MarsLander

12:30pm Tue 23 Jul 13

Sealegs says...

Anyvacancies wrote:
Sealegs you agree on the benefits then as you only answered 1 of the questions!
Not sure I understand what you mean. I was referring to Let`s`aveitright's post, not yours. I THINK we're on the same side on this.....?
[quote][p][bold]Anyvacancies[/bold] wrote: Sealegs you agree on the benefits then as you only answered 1 of the questions![/p][/quote]Not sure I understand what you mean. I was referring to Let`s`aveitright's post, not yours. I THINK we're on the same side on this.....? Sealegs

1:52pm Tue 23 Jul 13

garston tony says...

Let's 'aveitright, thats a big leap in your statement linking this incident to abuse and one that isnt warranted. It could just as easily be argued that a teacher reading a letter could actually prevent or discover any abuse that is happening.

But regardless for all we know the kids could have been made fully aware that their letters were going to be read, that could have been the whole point. Write a letter home and we'll read it out to the rest of the class before posting it, or we'll read them before posting to check for spelling etc. This is a school trip involving a few nights away and I would imagine/actually hope that teachers have a lot of authority/leaway in how they manage it.

You obviously have an axe to grind against the school and headteacher, you have your reasons for that but as I said in a previous post a child breaking the rules on two occassions which led to her own safety being compromised and potential problems with the management of where they are staying is a serious matter.
Let's 'aveitright, thats a big leap in your statement linking this incident to abuse and one that isnt warranted. It could just as easily be argued that a teacher reading a letter could actually prevent or discover any abuse that is happening. But regardless for all we know the kids could have been made fully aware that their letters were going to be read, that could have been the whole point. Write a letter home and we'll read it out to the rest of the class before posting it, or we'll read them before posting to check for spelling etc. This is a school trip involving a few nights away and I would imagine/actually hope that teachers have a lot of authority/leaway in how they manage it. You obviously have an axe to grind against the school and headteacher, you have your reasons for that but as I said in a previous post a child breaking the rules on two occassions which led to her own safety being compromised and potential problems with the management of where they are staying is a serious matter. garston tony

1:55pm Tue 23 Jul 13

garston tony says...

What is it with people running to the press all the time, its only a small sample but the results on this particular site show that most people dont get the sympathy they are so obviously looking for. And quite rightly to be honest most of the time. Its a Jeremy Kyle mentality, wanting to air their dirty laundry for everyone to see even if it means they themselves are the ones that look stupid not the person they are against.

I feel sorry for this kid, it seems that poor parenting has led to her becoming a child with problems and just at a crucial stage in life when she is about to begin senior school her mum makes her chances of changing worse by putting her forward for ridicule. I hope something inspires her soon to change her ways but chances are she'll carry on on the path her mum has set her on and she will in turn be an unproductive member of society who wants to blame all their problems on everyone else.
What is it with people running to the press all the time, its only a small sample but the results on this particular site show that most people dont get the sympathy they are so obviously looking for. And quite rightly to be honest most of the time. Its a Jeremy Kyle mentality, wanting to air their dirty laundry for everyone to see even if it means they themselves are the ones that look stupid not the person they are against. I feel sorry for this kid, it seems that poor parenting has led to her becoming a child with problems and just at a crucial stage in life when she is about to begin senior school her mum makes her chances of changing worse by putting her forward for ridicule. I hope something inspires her soon to change her ways but chances are she'll carry on on the path her mum has set her on and she will in turn be an unproductive member of society who wants to blame all their problems on everyone else. garston tony

4:55pm Tue 23 Jul 13

notquitethewholestory says...

garston tony wrote:
What is it with people running to the press all the time, its only a small sample but the results on this particular site show that most people dont get the sympathy they are so obviously looking for. And quite rightly to be honest most of the time. Its a Jeremy Kyle mentality, wanting to air their dirty laundry for everyone to see even if it means they themselves are the ones that look stupid not the person they are against.

I feel sorry for this kid, it seems that poor parenting has led to her becoming a child with problems and just at a crucial stage in life when she is about to begin senior school her mum makes her chances of changing worse by putting her forward for ridicule. I hope something inspires her soon to change her ways but chances are she'll carry on on the path her mum has set her on and she will in turn be an unproductive member of society who wants to blame all their problems on everyone else.
garston tony I'm with you on every point you've made. I would also say that my child was on this trip and - as in past years when my other child did it - they were asked to take a stamped addressed postcard with them so they could write to us the first night and let us know they got there safely. So, it wasn't quite the scenario of ripping open envelopes and scrutinising letters home that one poster has imagined.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: What is it with people running to the press all the time, its only a small sample but the results on this particular site show that most people dont get the sympathy they are so obviously looking for. And quite rightly to be honest most of the time. Its a Jeremy Kyle mentality, wanting to air their dirty laundry for everyone to see even if it means they themselves are the ones that look stupid not the person they are against. I feel sorry for this kid, it seems that poor parenting has led to her becoming a child with problems and just at a crucial stage in life when she is about to begin senior school her mum makes her chances of changing worse by putting her forward for ridicule. I hope something inspires her soon to change her ways but chances are she'll carry on on the path her mum has set her on and she will in turn be an unproductive member of society who wants to blame all their problems on everyone else.[/p][/quote]garston tony I'm with you on every point you've made. I would also say that my child was on this trip and - as in past years when my other child did it - they were asked to take a stamped addressed postcard with them so they could write to us the first night and let us know they got there safely. So, it wasn't quite the scenario of ripping open envelopes and scrutinising letters home that one poster has imagined. notquitethewholestory

6:23pm Tue 23 Jul 13

billybob5 says...

Mrs Graves is a bully. she is draconian and needs to go. She bullies staff, parents and pupils. She rarely makes herself available to discuss any issues parents may have, she imparts confidential information about one parent to another, and she has never in my experience made an apology about anything she has mishandled within her remit as Head Teacher. Oh and not only does she help herself to the perishable Harvester Goodies, she helps herself to donations made to the school by well meaning parents and members of the local commcommunity. It's just a pity that all her misdemeanours and her stinking attitude has only been brought to light as a result of this story. No point in going to the Governors though...can't see the hubby wanting to get on her wrong side. Unethical?? It is downwright corrupt....
Mrs Graves is a bully. she is draconian and needs to go. She bullies staff, parents and pupils. She rarely makes herself available to discuss any issues parents may have, she imparts confidential information about one parent to another, and she has never in my experience made an apology about anything she has mishandled within her remit as Head Teacher. Oh and not only does she help herself to the perishable Harvester Goodies, she helps herself to donations made to the school by well meaning parents and members of the local commcommunity. It's just a pity that all her misdemeanours and her stinking attitude has only been brought to light as a result of this story. No point in going to the Governors though...can't see the hubby wanting to get on her wrong side. Unethical?? It is downwright corrupt.... billybob5

8:18pm Tue 23 Jul 13

notquitethewholestory says...

billybob5 wrote:
Mrs Graves is a bully. she is draconian and needs to go. She bullies staff, parents and pupils. She rarely makes herself available to discuss any issues parents may have, she imparts confidential information about one parent to another, and she has never in my experience made an apology about anything she has mishandled within her remit as Head Teacher. Oh and not only does she help herself to the perishable Harvester Goodies, she helps herself to donations made to the school by well meaning parents and members of the local commcommunity. It's just a pity that all her misdemeanours and her stinking attitude has only been brought to light as a result of this story. No point in going to the Governors though...can't see the hubby wanting to get on her wrong side. Unethical?? It is downwright corrupt....
billybob5 I hope you have the evidence to back up your comment that Mrs Graves 'helps herself to donations made to the school by well meaning parents' for two reasons - firstly that is a truly libellous comment and secondly, I am one of those 'well meaning parents' and would like to know exactly what you mean by your remark. I don't for one minute believe you'll be able to substantiate it though.
[quote][p][bold]billybob5[/bold] wrote: Mrs Graves is a bully. she is draconian and needs to go. She bullies staff, parents and pupils. She rarely makes herself available to discuss any issues parents may have, she imparts confidential information about one parent to another, and she has never in my experience made an apology about anything she has mishandled within her remit as Head Teacher. Oh and not only does she help herself to the perishable Harvester Goodies, she helps herself to donations made to the school by well meaning parents and members of the local commcommunity. It's just a pity that all her misdemeanours and her stinking attitude has only been brought to light as a result of this story. No point in going to the Governors though...can't see the hubby wanting to get on her wrong side. Unethical?? It is downwright corrupt....[/p][/quote]billybob5 I hope you have the evidence to back up your comment that Mrs Graves 'helps herself to donations made to the school by well meaning parents' for two reasons - firstly that is a truly libellous comment and secondly, I am one of those 'well meaning parents' and would like to know exactly what you mean by your remark. I don't for one minute believe you'll be able to substantiate it though. notquitethewholestory

9:16pm Tue 23 Jul 13

Let`s`aveitright says...

Nice one Billy! My child says the same only I can`t back it up. I really don`t have a problem with the school or the fantastic full-time teaching staff. I do think that the headteacher is well past her sell-by date and am very glad for the publicity. What children are seeing is corruption. Her husband is not only a governor to the school, from what I understand is also an accountant....GOOGLE IT! For those who say Mrs McCann should take the conventional route, I tell you that is impossible. I know I am not alone in finding her unapproachable.
Nice one Billy! My child says the same only I can`t back it up. I really don`t have a problem with the school or the fantastic full-time teaching staff. I do think that the headteacher is well past her sell-by date and am very glad for the publicity. What children are seeing is corruption. Her husband is not only a governor to the school, from what I understand is also an accountant....GOOGLE IT! For those who say Mrs McCann should take the conventional route, I tell you that is impossible. I know I am not alone in finding her unapproachable. Let`s`aveitright

9:37pm Tue 23 Jul 13

billybob5 says...

Perhaps you should ask Mrs Graves about the donated jumble she helped herself to last year, and her subsequent apology to the donor when caught?? Because it did happen . And it's only libellous I understand if not true.
Perhaps you should ask Mrs Graves about the donated jumble she helped herself to last year, and her subsequent apology to the donor when caught?? Because it did happen . And it's only libellous I understand if not true. billybob5

9:46pm Tue 23 Jul 13

Let`s`aveitright says...

garston tony wrote:
Let's 'aveitright, thats a big leap in your statement linking this incident to abuse and one that isnt warranted. It could just as easily be argued that a teacher reading a letter could actually prevent or discover any abuse that is happening.

But regardless for all we know the kids could have been made fully aware that their letters were going to be read, that could have been the whole point. Write a letter home and we'll read it out to the rest of the class before posting it, or we'll read them before posting to check for spelling etc. This is a school trip involving a few nights away and I would imagine/actually hope that teachers have a lot of authority/leaway in how they manage it.

You obviously have an axe to grind against the school and headteacher, you have your reasons for that but as I said in a previous post a child breaking the rules on two occassions which led to her own safety being compromised and potential problems with the management of where they are staying is a serious matter.
No problem with the School only with the headteacher and one in particular of her TWO secretaries....I see I am not alone.
A coach/bus driver who orders no food and drink to be consumed on his School-run, knows a few kids will break the rules and would expect to have to clean up a minimal amount of mess as a result of his rule. The hotel are probably as innocent as the children in all this.
It`s a shame common sense is not very common.
[quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: Let's 'aveitright, thats a big leap in your statement linking this incident to abuse and one that isnt warranted. It could just as easily be argued that a teacher reading a letter could actually prevent or discover any abuse that is happening. But regardless for all we know the kids could have been made fully aware that their letters were going to be read, that could have been the whole point. Write a letter home and we'll read it out to the rest of the class before posting it, or we'll read them before posting to check for spelling etc. This is a school trip involving a few nights away and I would imagine/actually hope that teachers have a lot of authority/leaway in how they manage it. You obviously have an axe to grind against the school and headteacher, you have your reasons for that but as I said in a previous post a child breaking the rules on two occassions which led to her own safety being compromised and potential problems with the management of where they are staying is a serious matter.[/p][/quote]No problem with the School only with the headteacher and one in particular of her TWO secretaries....I see I am not alone. A coach/bus driver who orders no food and drink to be consumed on his School-run, knows a few kids will break the rules and would expect to have to clean up a minimal amount of mess as a result of his rule. The hotel are probably as innocent as the children in all this. It`s a shame common sense is not very common. Let`s`aveitright

10:30pm Tue 23 Jul 13

Let`s`aveitright says...

billybob5 wrote:
Perhaps you should ask Mrs Graves about the donated jumble she helped herself to last year, and her subsequent apology to the donor when caught?? Because it did happen . And it's only libellous I understand if not true.
In the words of Alice "Curiouser and curiouser"
As aforementioned the ogre of obesity is a dangerous animal and should have a warning sign , otherwise I jolly well would ask her. I would also ask for clarification of how much money `Children in need` received, hopefully more than was pictured in a previous Watford Observer!!
Billybob you clearly know what you are talking about, it appears there has been yet another `cover up`

Karma is a b**ch
[quote][p][bold]billybob5[/bold] wrote: Perhaps you should ask Mrs Graves about the donated jumble she helped herself to last year, and her subsequent apology to the donor when caught?? Because it did happen . And it's only libellous I understand if not true.[/p][/quote]In the words of Alice "Curiouser and curiouser" As aforementioned the ogre of obesity is a dangerous animal and should have a warning sign , otherwise I jolly well would ask her. I would also ask for clarification of how much money `Children in need` received, hopefully more than was pictured in a previous Watford Observer!! Billybob you clearly know what you are talking about, it appears there has been yet another `cover up` Karma is a b**ch Let`s`aveitright

10:32pm Tue 23 Jul 13

LSC says...

notquitethewholestor
y
wrote:
garston tony wrote:
What is it with people running to the press all the time, its only a small sample but the results on this particular site show that most people dont get the sympathy they are so obviously looking for. And quite rightly to be honest most of the time. Its a Jeremy Kyle mentality, wanting to air their dirty laundry for everyone to see even if it means they themselves are the ones that look stupid not the person they are against.

I feel sorry for this kid, it seems that poor parenting has led to her becoming a child with problems and just at a crucial stage in life when she is about to begin senior school her mum makes her chances of changing worse by putting her forward for ridicule. I hope something inspires her soon to change her ways but chances are she'll carry on on the path her mum has set her on and she will in turn be an unproductive member of society who wants to blame all their problems on everyone else.
garston tony I'm with you on every point you've made. I would also say that my child was on this trip and - as in past years when my other child did it - they were asked to take a stamped addressed postcard with them so they could write to us the first night and let us know they got there safely. So, it wasn't quite the scenario of ripping open envelopes and scrutinising letters home that one poster has imagined.
I'm slightly surprised they weren't texting before they left the car park. Do 11 year olds know what envelopes even are?

For my sins part of my job involves education. The amount of children who can't use a knife and fork, sit at a table, butter a slice of bread or say please and thank you is STAGGERING.
[quote][p][bold]notquitethewholestor y[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: What is it with people running to the press all the time, its only a small sample but the results on this particular site show that most people dont get the sympathy they are so obviously looking for. And quite rightly to be honest most of the time. Its a Jeremy Kyle mentality, wanting to air their dirty laundry for everyone to see even if it means they themselves are the ones that look stupid not the person they are against. I feel sorry for this kid, it seems that poor parenting has led to her becoming a child with problems and just at a crucial stage in life when she is about to begin senior school her mum makes her chances of changing worse by putting her forward for ridicule. I hope something inspires her soon to change her ways but chances are she'll carry on on the path her mum has set her on and she will in turn be an unproductive member of society who wants to blame all their problems on everyone else.[/p][/quote]garston tony I'm with you on every point you've made. I would also say that my child was on this trip and - as in past years when my other child did it - they were asked to take a stamped addressed postcard with them so they could write to us the first night and let us know they got there safely. So, it wasn't quite the scenario of ripping open envelopes and scrutinising letters home that one poster has imagined.[/p][/quote]I'm slightly surprised they weren't texting before they left the car park. Do 11 year olds know what envelopes even are? For my sins part of my job involves education. The amount of children who can't use a knife and fork, sit at a table, butter a slice of bread or say please and thank you is STAGGERING. LSC

10:41pm Tue 23 Jul 13

notquitethewholestory says...

LSC wrote:
notquitethewholestor

y
wrote:
garston tony wrote:
What is it with people running to the press all the time, its only a small sample but the results on this particular site show that most people dont get the sympathy they are so obviously looking for. And quite rightly to be honest most of the time. Its a Jeremy Kyle mentality, wanting to air their dirty laundry for everyone to see even if it means they themselves are the ones that look stupid not the person they are against.

I feel sorry for this kid, it seems that poor parenting has led to her becoming a child with problems and just at a crucial stage in life when she is about to begin senior school her mum makes her chances of changing worse by putting her forward for ridicule. I hope something inspires her soon to change her ways but chances are she'll carry on on the path her mum has set her on and she will in turn be an unproductive member of society who wants to blame all their problems on everyone else.
garston tony I'm with you on every point you've made. I would also say that my child was on this trip and - as in past years when my other child did it - they were asked to take a stamped addressed postcard with them so they could write to us the first night and let us know they got there safely. So, it wasn't quite the scenario of ripping open envelopes and scrutinising letters home that one poster has imagined.
I'm slightly surprised they weren't texting before they left the car park. Do 11 year olds know what envelopes even are?

For my sins part of my job involves education. The amount of children who can't use a knife and fork, sit at a table, butter a slice of bread or say please and thank you is STAGGERING.
They weren't allowed to take phones or mobile devices. That said, I remember a couple of 'selfies' Holli took on the coach on the way there that turned up in one of the nationals....
[quote][p][bold]LSC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notquitethewholestor y[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]garston tony[/bold] wrote: What is it with people running to the press all the time, its only a small sample but the results on this particular site show that most people dont get the sympathy they are so obviously looking for. And quite rightly to be honest most of the time. Its a Jeremy Kyle mentality, wanting to air their dirty laundry for everyone to see even if it means they themselves are the ones that look stupid not the person they are against. I feel sorry for this kid, it seems that poor parenting has led to her becoming a child with problems and just at a crucial stage in life when she is about to begin senior school her mum makes her chances of changing worse by putting her forward for ridicule. I hope something inspires her soon to change her ways but chances are she'll carry on on the path her mum has set her on and she will in turn be an unproductive member of society who wants to blame all their problems on everyone else.[/p][/quote]garston tony I'm with you on every point you've made. I would also say that my child was on this trip and - as in past years when my other child did it - they were asked to take a stamped addressed postcard with them so they could write to us the first night and let us know they got there safely. So, it wasn't quite the scenario of ripping open envelopes and scrutinising letters home that one poster has imagined.[/p][/quote]I'm slightly surprised they weren't texting before they left the car park. Do 11 year olds know what envelopes even are? For my sins part of my job involves education. The amount of children who can't use a knife and fork, sit at a table, butter a slice of bread or say please and thank you is STAGGERING.[/p][/quote]They weren't allowed to take phones or mobile devices. That said, I remember a couple of 'selfies' Holli took on the coach on the way there that turned up in one of the nationals.... notquitethewholestory

10:45pm Tue 23 Jul 13

Let`s`aveitright says...

Personally I find the amount of people saying that Hollis mother should go get a job frankly STAGGERING.
That woman deserves a medal. Seeing an autistic child into adulthood is a very unrewarding full-time job, with the best will in the world not many could do it. Let`s imagine for a second that it is not always the parents fault!
She is in a no win situation.
Personally I find the amount of people saying that Hollis mother should go get a job frankly STAGGERING. That woman deserves a medal. Seeing an autistic child into adulthood is a very unrewarding full-time job, with the best will in the world not many could do it. Let`s imagine for a second that it is not always the parents fault! She is in a no win situation. Let`s`aveitright

10:54pm Tue 23 Jul 13

Let`s`aveitright says...

Was it in `The Charter` that cameras were banned? notquitethewholestor
y
Was it in `The Charter` that cameras were banned? notquitethewholestor y Let`s`aveitright

1:58pm Wed 24 Jul 13

garston tony says...

So there we have it, one of the anti head posters admits that their 'evidence' for what they say about her comes from what their kids are saying.

Now i'm not for one second claiming that children should be ignored, but using my own experiences and memories of school days I know of a few teachers who had 'reputations' amongst some pupils purely because they had done something wrong and been caught out by them. I dont doubt that in such cases they tried to justify themselves by making up outlandish stories which thankfully I think their parents knew better than to believe wholesale
So there we have it, one of the anti head posters admits that their 'evidence' for what they say about her comes from what their kids are saying. Now i'm not for one second claiming that children should be ignored, but using my own experiences and memories of school days I know of a few teachers who had 'reputations' amongst some pupils purely because they had done something wrong and been caught out by them. I dont doubt that in such cases they tried to justify themselves by making up outlandish stories which thankfully I think their parents knew better than to believe wholesale garston tony

2:56pm Fri 26 Jul 13

headlong says...

Let`s`aveitright wrote:
Nice one Billy! My child says the same only I can`t back it up. I really don`t have a problem with the school or the fantastic full-time teaching staff. I do think that the headteacher is well past her sell-by date and am very glad for the publicity. What children are seeing is corruption. Her husband is not only a governor to the school, from what I understand is also an accountant....GOOGLE IT! For those who say Mrs McCann should take the conventional route, I tell you that is impossible. I know I am not alone in finding her unapproachable.
Of all the accusations being flung about here, I find this one a bit strange. Stealing donated goods from a jumble sale? Yeah, I can see how that might be criticised. Having a governor who is married to the head? Yeah, I can see how that might raise a teensy tiny risk of conflict of interest. Being a recipient of state benefits? Well, yes, the times we live in, that is always going to raise some hackles. The husband, who is also a governor, is, shock horror, AN ACCOUNTANT!!!! Burn him, burn him, and burn his evil spreadsheets!!!! You what? Did I miss something?
[quote][p][bold]Let`s`aveitright[/bold] wrote: Nice one Billy! My child says the same only I can`t back it up. I really don`t have a problem with the school or the fantastic full-time teaching staff. I do think that the headteacher is well past her sell-by date and am very glad for the publicity. What children are seeing is corruption. Her husband is not only a governor to the school, from what I understand is also an accountant....GOOGLE IT! For those who say Mrs McCann should take the conventional route, I tell you that is impossible. I know I am not alone in finding her unapproachable.[/p][/quote]Of all the accusations being flung about here, I find this one a bit strange. Stealing donated goods from a jumble sale? Yeah, I can see how that might be criticised. Having a governor who is married to the head? Yeah, I can see how that might raise a teensy tiny risk of conflict of interest. Being a recipient of state benefits? Well, yes, the times we live in, that is always going to raise some hackles. The husband, who is also a governor, is, shock horror, AN ACCOUNTANT!!!! Burn him, burn him, and burn his evil spreadsheets!!!! You what? Did I miss something? headlong

5:42pm Fri 26 Jul 13

karmafeelsgood says...

Only 1 other paper i found reported that Holli was sent home for eating chocolate AND misbehaving on the beach. Its amazing that the media can report half the facts on a story and everyone believes it, do you really think teachers send kids home for eating chocolate?? If that were so why did the other 2 offenders get to stay? I know Holli and she has behaviour issues. The teachers will have had to make a difficult decision to send her home to maintain the safety of Holli and the other pupils. If the media had bothered to ask the question about Holli and her family's behaviour at school and home, this would be a different story, but not as sensational, A more productive angle would be the effect of irresponsible bad parenting, its effect on the community and how to tackle it, did the paper mention her philandering immoral father Royal Marine WO1 John Fletcher (only slander if its not true) and the effect his behaviour has had on the poor child? No, that was missed out too, I guess thats not news though. Why did Hollis mum have to scrape together the money for the trip (although they always have brand new phones and designer footwear) when he swans around in a new BMW neglecting to tell the CSA his whereabouts? I was saddened to hear the comments made about Holli, there was a lovely little girl in there when she had a stable influence in her life, she is sadly now the product of her parents selfishness and greed.
Only 1 other paper i found reported that Holli was sent home for eating chocolate AND misbehaving on the beach. Its amazing that the media can report half the facts on a story and everyone believes it, do you really think teachers send kids home for eating chocolate?? If that were so why did the other 2 offenders get to stay? I know Holli and she has behaviour issues. The teachers will have had to make a difficult decision to send her home to maintain the safety of Holli and the other pupils. If the media had bothered to ask the question about Holli and her family's behaviour at school and home, this would be a different story, but not as sensational, A more productive angle would be the effect of irresponsible bad parenting, its effect on the community and how to tackle it, did the paper mention her philandering immoral father Royal Marine WO1 John Fletcher (only slander if its not true) and the effect his behaviour has had on the poor child? No, that was missed out too, I guess thats not news though. Why did Hollis mum have to scrape together the money for the trip (although they always have brand new phones and designer footwear) when he swans around in a new BMW neglecting to tell the CSA his whereabouts? I was saddened to hear the comments made about Holli, there was a lovely little girl in there when she had a stable influence in her life, she is sadly now the product of her parents selfishness and greed. karmafeelsgood

10:59am Wed 31 Jul 13

Hairy Hornet says...

Would have been refreshing if the girl had apologised for flouting the rule and accepted she had to accept the punishment. However it is not clear what the sanctions were and whether they were all advised of this. If the school had made it clear then there should be no complaints.
It may sound trivial banning chocolate but its a discipline, just like a lot of the Army's drills and obsession with tidyness may sound pointless, but there is a value in it whatever the task.
The attitude demonstrated is probably a very good indicator of future behaviour.
Would have been refreshing if the girl had apologised for flouting the rule and accepted she had to accept the punishment. However it is not clear what the sanctions were and whether they were all advised of this. If the school had made it clear then there should be no complaints. It may sound trivial banning chocolate but its a discipline, just like a lot of the Army's drills and obsession with tidyness may sound pointless, but there is a value in it whatever the task. The attitude demonstrated is probably a very good indicator of future behaviour. Hairy Hornet

1:12pm Wed 31 Jul 13

garston tony says...

Hairy Hornet wrote:
Would have been refreshing if the girl had apologised for flouting the rule and accepted she had to accept the punishment. However it is not clear what the sanctions were and whether they were all advised of this. If the school had made it clear then there should be no complaints. It may sound trivial banning chocolate but its a discipline, just like a lot of the Army's drills and obsession with tidyness may sound pointless, but there is a value in it whatever the task. The attitude demonstrated is probably a very good indicator of future behaviour.
The children AND parents had to sign a charter before going on this trip where both the expected behaviour and consequences of any breaches were set out.

Therefore the child and mother cant (and to be fair dont) deny knowing she did wrong and certainly they knew the potential consequences. The grey area is wether the school asked the mum to pick up the daughter or if as has been suggested it was the mothers own decision to do so.

Ether way yes the behaviour doesnt leave much optimism for the kids future behaviour, how is she going to change if her parent instead of disciplining her blames everyone else for her actions?
[quote][p][bold]Hairy Hornet[/bold] wrote: Would have been refreshing if the girl had apologised for flouting the rule and accepted she had to accept the punishment. However it is not clear what the sanctions were and whether they were all advised of this. If the school had made it clear then there should be no complaints. It may sound trivial banning chocolate but its a discipline, just like a lot of the Army's drills and obsession with tidyness may sound pointless, but there is a value in it whatever the task. The attitude demonstrated is probably a very good indicator of future behaviour.[/p][/quote]The children AND parents had to sign a charter before going on this trip where both the expected behaviour and consequences of any breaches were set out. Therefore the child and mother cant (and to be fair dont) deny knowing she did wrong and certainly they knew the potential consequences. The grey area is wether the school asked the mum to pick up the daughter or if as has been suggested it was the mothers own decision to do so. Ether way yes the behaviour doesnt leave much optimism for the kids future behaviour, how is she going to change if her parent instead of disciplining her blames everyone else for her actions? garston tony

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

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

I agree