Mr Raynsford says, “I will be exploring alternative options including the possibility of provision on the school’s two existing sites”.

If he’s exploring options, one of which is staying put, then what would another of these multiple options include? I made the great mental leap that another of his options would be to not stay put. Unless, of course, all of his options are for provision on the existing sites. In which case, it would only be one option. Which would make it a decision. Which, strangely enough, IS the governors’ decision.

Perhaps it would have been much more straightforward if Mr Raynsford had simply said that he would support the governing body in their decision? After all, this is what he’s always said he’d do.

Why do you assume Nick Raynsford is seeking to help the school move from the site? His comment doesnt say that is his aim – so why put words in his mouth.

Is there an election in the offing? Could CarDent be one of Nicks opponents?

The Council, in essence, seems set on building a school on the Peninsula with John Roan’s BSF money (i.e. the PFI credits)… but will help the school to “try” and find other money elsewhere. Like that’s going to happen!

Mr Raynsford suggests that having been delayed in its “early move” to the Peninsula, he’ll now start looking at “alternative options” for John Roan. Actually, the governors carried out a feasibility study and have decided to stay put – they haven’t decided to pursue alternative options.

If this is support for John Roan and its governors, I wonder what obstruction would look like?

That was another mad project that the Greenwich Society supported, apparently for entirely political reasons, gone west.