This was our first chance to talk to the now infamous TOPS team and the turnout was once again overwhelming with very little standing room left in the school hall with parent's, school governors, ward councillors and the church all in attendance.

The TOPS team gave a short presentation giving an overview of the consultation process and the reasons behind the report being considered in the first place, i.e. surplus school places.

It was then the communities turn to voice their concerns and ask questions to the members of the TOPS team who stood before them. These views and queries were voiced with an array of emotions one-by-one, each person patiently waiting to have their say with all comments being documented by a representative of the TOPS team.

Topics covered included distances to alternative schools; continued religious education; the adverse effect on those taking SATs; pressure on children who would have to change schools twice in one year (those moving up to Comp); and particular emphasis was placed on the caring and nurturing ethos this school offered with amazing success stories from various parents of how this school had helped their children where others could not.

In the rare occasion that passions were beginning to run to high, the chairperson did a good job of keeping the meeting under control, but in the main points were raised calmly up until the point where more difficult questions were being answered with a simple "we have taken note of that".

At this point people raised there concerns that they believed this was their chance to get answers from the TOPS team and some requests, such as a plain English explanation of the criteria each proposal would be scored against during Feb 2008's Cabinet meeting, were pressed on with multiple people insisting for more information.

It was the topic of the criteria that brought an unidentified member of the TOPS team, who was sitting amongst the audience, into the mix who very angrily declared that all information had been given to school staff and if we didn't have it then why had they not passed it on? When asked by a parent to identify himself, as we thought he was a parent or member of the public, he gave the vague answer of "I'm just a substitute".

Unsatisfied parent's, ignoring his blast at the school as we knew they had passed on all documentation, pressed further on the matter of the criteria set out within the report which seemed to anger this mysterious TOPS team member to the extent that he stood up and accused one parent of "rhetoric".

This behaviour, coupled with the inability to answer of lot of questions, left a sour taste in the mouths of most who had came to the meeting expecting to have a 'question and answer' session. Instead we seemed to take part in a 'tell us how you feel and we will listen' excercise.

Minutes of the meeting are to be made available we believe when they are completed.