Still no answers to the first issues I raised.

In a recent email to parents of the school on Nitida it was claimed that the Environmental Health Committee had spent many hours answering my many questions and that none of the answers provided have been reflected on this blog. So I will start at the beginning and detail the many questions I've posed and you can judge for yourself whether any credible answers have been forthcoming from the school. There are more to follow but these were the first comments I offered hoping for at least some response.

On the 3 May 2010, following the 27 April meeting to discuss the spaying issue I sent the following email to Emma Medell (the principle of the school) and the 4 members of the business steering committee, Dave and Alice D'Aguiar and Rolph and Fiona Walther. Accompanying this email was a copy of the full analysis, as I saw it, of the 27 April meeting and events as they effected my family leading up to this meeting.
This can be found here.

A summary of my own conclusions and my opinion on the issue is posted below, this was included in my email. I maintain that to date not one of these issues have been address nor even acknowledged. In fact, my email wasn't even acknowledged either. I am still waiting for these points to be answered.

"4 May 2010
Dear Emma, Alice, Dave, Fiona and Ralph

I'm writing to express, directly to you, my disappointment and sadness over the way recent events have unfolded.
I have considered each of you to be a friend. I've enjoyed your company on many occasions and felt a genuine bond with you.

My feelings about our most recent interaction with you as a group, in the the form of the Business Steering Committee and the school as a business, are, however, very different.

I feel I've been treated with a complete lack of courtesy or honesty. My perception of the way things prior to, and actually at, last Thursday's meeting appear are detailed in my, fairly lengthy, commentary below. If any of you should read it and feel you can demonstrate to me how and where I'm mistaken in my analysis I welcome being shown.

As things stand, I feel that, as a group, you have demonstrated a total disregard for any sort of balanced appraisal of the situation and have placed the schools business considerations before all others. I consider that in the evaluation of my son's safety and health there can be no other considerations to take into account at all.

What I personally find most baffling is how it is, while confessing your ignorance of any real facts, you are all, never-the-less, so adamant that this is a non-issue. Your willingness to throw out misleading, irrelevant and completely inaccurate information in defence of your, completely unexamined, stance leaves me feeling insulted, angry and bewildered.

I know I'm not the only parent who feels this way and I imagine that you may well be feeling similar emotions, but for slightly different reasons perhaps. I am not prepard to hide my opinion nor my true feelings and put a false smile on to pretend nothing is wrong. I've stated my views as clearly and as accurately as I can.

sincerely,

Ford"

Please note: This document is written without prejudice

"Summary

1:

Reassurances as to the legality and safety issues surrounding spraying given by both the owner of the farm and the School are reasonably shown to be misleading and inadequate.

2:

According to present legislation it is illegal to allow agricultural chemicals to drift onto “areas not being treated”

3:
It appears highly probably that spray drift does in fact end up on the school premises.

4:

The school has taken no steps to establish that the school isn’t contaminated in this way.

5:
The school continues to deny any problem may exist and is resistant to assessing any findings that suggest cause for concern.

6:
The full details and implications of the valid concerns of a small group of parents are being withheld from the larger body of parents. This has prevented an open discussion and debate on the matter.

7:
In communications with TATIB ( the Air That I Breathe foundation, who first raised concerns over spraying near our school) A representative of the schools Business Steering Committee represented themselves as being from the Parent Committee.

8:
We don’t have a Parent Committee to represent our views and concerns.

9:
The school has a legal duty to show that due care has been taken with regard to our children’s safety. The onus is on the school to prove that the school and it’s premises are free of agricultural chemicals. This can be done by instituting a thorough analysis of the soil, vegetation and school building. It seems prudent to carry out air quality tests specifically on the days that spraying does take place, also.

10:
Failure to demonstrate that the school is a safe environment and that the farm is operating within the law may give parents the right to hold both liable for any harm that may subsequently come to light."

While it may seem a minor matter I publish a copy of the contents of one of the emails to TATIB in which a member of the BSC presents themselves as a representative of the Parent Committee, a committee we didn't have at the time. There exist a number of such "misleading" emails and I'm willing to forward copies to anyone who wishes to look into this matter. I feel this misrepresentation was a deliberate attempt to try and control the spread of information.

"Hi Jurgen,

I have asked you to direct your mails to me alone, I am the 'point person' and I assure you I will pass on your mails as necessary.

It is a simple request, kindly comply.

Kind regards

Dave D'Aguiar

Parent Committee"