New Secondary School for Lusk gets on another list

SeaSide

Having spent five years on a list the new secondary school for Lusk has made it onto another list. This time with a promise that it will be built by 2017 or to translate that - a pupil in Senior Infants in Lusk may or may not have a local school to go to by the time they finish primary.

Based on the last census of population in 2006 I challenge anyone to find another town in the 100 largest towns in Ireland that does not have a secondary school. The list is here

SeaSide

Monaghan Town (population 6641) gets sixth secondary school http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0812/monaghan.html

Lusk (population 8814) gets a list

and i get pissed off,

and taxed extra

Bluetonic

SeaSide wrote: »

Monaghan Town (population 6641) gets sixth secondary school http://www.rte.ie/news/2011/0812/monaghan.html

Lusk (population 8814) gets a list

Poor analysis on the population list there.

Lusks town population is not 8,814 and you are not analysing like with like.

Parts of that population list are closer to Balbriggan/Skerries then they would be to Lusk village.

SeaSide

I didn't draw the lines on the map. At what stage do you think the ratio would be reasonable?

Bluetonic

SeaSide wrote: »

I didn't draw the lines on the map. At what stage do you think the ratio would be reasonable?

I don't have an opinion on it just pointing out that your population figures which you are using to back up your point are incorrect.

If you are going to to use statistics it's best to use them correctly as when you don't it really muddies what you are trying to say.

SeaSide

Bluetonic wrote: »

I don't have an opinion on it just pointing out that your population figures which you are using to back up your point are incorrect.

If you are going to to use statistics it's best to use them correctly as when you don't it really muddies what you are trying to say.

I took the figures off the CSO website. I ain't going to rerun the entire census.

Not much more accurate than anyone else can get

Bluetonic

SeaSide wrote: »

I took the figures off the CSO website. I ain't going to rerun the entire census.

Not much more accurate than anyone else can get

Clearly the figures you used to back up your point are irrelevant as they are count two different demographics, can you see this?

SeaSide

Bluetonic wrote: »

Clearly the figures you used to back up your point are irrelevant as they are count two different demographics, can you see this?

I can see that there are two separate statistical populations and that as a demographic is defined as the statistical characteristic of a population you win that argument by stating the blatantly obvious.

As no breakdowns based on DEDs have as yet been published I ask again what better figures are there? And I'll ask again at what point you think the ratios become reasonable?

Bluetonic

SeaSide wrote: »

And I'll ask again at what point you think the ratios become reasonable?

What part of I don't have an opinion of ratios and schools etc.., do you not understand?

Just because you don't have the correct figures doesn't mean you should use incorrect ones.

The Hill Billy

This is going nowhere. Closed.

tHB