MAURICE Smith stated in his letter (November 1) that the Diocese of Manchester is not a “private business”. This seems, at best, to be splitting hairs.

The co-sponsor of the proposed Breightmet CE Academy is, after all, part of the Church of England — an organisation which enjoys assets to the tune of £4.8 billion and which is run for the sole benefit of its officials and supporters.

The one obvious way in which it differs from the average business is that — notwithstanding its considerable wealth — one arm of its operation is funded almost entirely by the taxpayer, namely its schools.

Moreover, in issuing a call for everyone to get behind the academy proposal “now that the council has made its decision”, Mr Smith conveniently avoided mention of the manner in which that decision was reached.

Through the “consultation” exercise, the church and the co-sponsors, the Crosslands, were told overwhelmingly that their academy was not wanted.

The council, presumably, noted the level of opposition — 90 per cent in respect of Withins and 79 per cent in respect of Top o’th’ Brow.

With breathtaking obduracy, all parties seem determined to ignore the wishes of the community and proceed with the plan.

The Expression of Interest document talked of their business expertise. These, however, are schools and not businesses.

For the council’s part, pressing on with so unpopular a scheme is a curious way of carrying out its constituents’ wishes, on which expectation they were presumably elected.

It is difficult not to wonder whether the decision is merely a case of slavishly toeing the party line.

Councillors will no doubt cite the apparent financial investment in the proposed academy as a reason for supporting it. However, as it surely must be aware, only a negligible amount of this will come from the Crosslands and none from the church. The rest will be taxpayers’ money.

The council, it seems, would rather give the schools away for a pittance than work to secure appropriate Government funding for them as they are and as the community wishes them to remain.

The motives of the church are quite apparent. Despite assertions to the contrary, it clearly intends to do its utmost to gain control of as many schools as it can for the purpose of indoctrinating children.

A synopsis on the church’s website states that the report “identifies the future supply of Christian teachers as the most important issue facing church schools”.

It emphasises that “church schools and colleges must be distinctively Christian institutions. For any new church schools . . . there should be a core of Christian pupils”.

In the light of such declarations of intent, protestations from the Diocese of Manchester that Breightmet CE Academy would not be first and foremost a recruiting office for the Church of England ring hollow.

Whatever milder examples of Church schools may have existed hitherto, it is clear that the Church is upping the ante. Such an environment as it envisages is hardly conducive to the unfettered independence of thought which schools should surely be encouraging.

It is not too late for the council to show wisdom, humility and respect for the wishes of its constituents by throwing out the Breightmet CE Academy plan and working strenuously to ensure that both existing schools continue to prosper.

I urge it once again to reconsider.

Mike Lim

Delph Avenue

Egerton