Wednesday, 21 September 2016

Cookie Vendors Go Biometric

After much deliberation, Hampstead's largest cookie vendor's union, the Socially Enabled Longitudinal Latitudinal Eating Rights Society (SELLERS), has announced plans to adopt a biometric system for purchases, with users being asked to give little more than "not much" personal data.

Eating rights activist Abdi (Year 11), rumoured to have links with major cookie cartels in the former East Quad, described a series of violent altercations between fake buyers and cartel sellers. These frequent scuffles are known colloquially (to the Norf Weezy Yutes) as "jackups" or "stickdowns". Forcing people to reveal their bloodshot eyes to HD cameras and asking them a series of increasingly personal questions would make would-be thieves just a little bit less bothered, Abdi said.

Security analyst Tren D. said that this was very cyberpunk, and that SELLERS "will probably only leave a small fraction of their users' data in a publicly accessible place - definitely no more than four hundred".

At the time of press, Abdi (Year 10), fell victim to mob justice, after selling Abdi (Year 11) a 3-week-old triple chocolate chip cookie. After the adept application of leeches and salt by emergency medical technicians, Abdi (Year 10), was seen - his face largely obscured by bandages - reading a trashy leaflet, boldly titled "SELLERS is going biometric. What does this mean for you?".

DISCLAIMER: This article is an obvious spoof - Hampstead's cookie sellers have being using biometrics since 2005, the industry being famous for extensive body modification, virtual experiences and adventures in cyberspace.

Monday, 19 September 2016

Lockdown Update

Irony does not seem to escape Hampstead, simply fester there, left on an English classroom display, not understood. Last Thursday's Camden New Journal article on the school’s lockdown drill told of the Met police advice to schools to be “alert, not alarmed”; what does the school do? Set up an alarm.

A quote from the Head described it as “similar to a fire drill”. If by similar they mean entirely different, as it is (because the last thing you want is everyone in a wide open space), then yes, it is similar to a fire drill.

[To view the original report on last week's Lockdown drill, click the link here.] 

Friday, 16 September 2016

Hampstead's Lockdown Alarm: Not For Emergency Use

This week, Hampstead school performed its first lockdown drill, in preparation for the culmination of an unspecified threat. While a plan is better than no plan, within minutes of the drill's termination, pupils across the school could be heard formulating their own plans, few of them compliant with the Camden school authorities'.

This is not surprising. Perhaps due to a latent mistrust of authority, teenagers and young adults would naturally like to be given a role in their own lives. What is surprising, however, is that by some accounts, pupils and teachers at Hampstead school seem to have better ideas for their own protection than management and council staff.

One key facet of the procedures detailed in a short word document was staying as far away as possible from windows. Perhaps a fair principle at the time of its conception, it is simply unsuitable for Hampstead School, particularly when the many windows of the 'New Block' are taken into account. (The 'New Block' referenced here is, in fact, a very old one, soon destined for destruction). The year rooms (four of which are in the 'New Block') have windowed walls, and windowed doors, rendering this particular item of safety advice largely useless.

In addition to this major lack of foresight or even a capacity to understand how ideas must actually be implemented in the real world, the lockdown alarm and notice are deeply faulted as well. For the sake of security, we will not reveal the flawed alarm system that was in place during the drill, despite it being common knowledge amongst Hampstead students now, however, due to a number of possible extenuating circumstances (such as accidental or deliberate network failure to name just one), the current "LOCKDOWN ALARM" system has so many opportunities for localized and schoolwide failure that it can not truly be considered a valid means of ensuring student safety.

Due to the bolt-on implementation of these procedures, it remains unclear who can activate the lockdown alarm. As far as our investigations have uncovered, there are no plans to make activation of this alarm available to students or non-administrative staff.


DISCLAIMER: The safety protocols to protect against a terrorist threat detailed in this article are common practice for not just schools, but businesses as well, and so are already common knowledge; the detailing of which pose no threat to the school's safety beyond the threat to safety they pose in their implementation, as shown in the article. If you have any concerns about anything mentioned in the article, please do not hesitate to contact the school.

Monday, 12 September 2016

An (OFSTED) Inspector Calls

It has emerged that an OFSTED inspection is due to occur tomorrow (Tuesday). The inspection, which is taking place to either assert or refute Hampstead's current "good" rating, is expected to last just one day, with the school being able to request an additional inspection if they believe that an upgrade to the status of "oustanding" is called for.

Due to changes in operating procedure, OFSTED only provided a single day's notice of inspection; due to the Head's reliance on contriving situations to portray the school in a favourable light, teachers from across the school were summoned for an after-school meeting, where they were undoubtedly warned about the dangers of an untucked shirt, and the risk that an unlobotomized student may pose when interrogated by inspectors. Various Trash sources have confirmed that the meeting had the unfortunate side-effect of a school-wide cancellation of Period 6 classes, many of them A Level. So much for "every minute is a learning minute".

All we are left now is to speculate on what Her Majesty's Inspectors will uncover. Will they lament the disappearance of several motivational banners? Perhaps they'll curse the ugly (and expensive) bruise of plasticine and Lego that now occupies the former 'Approved Recreational Area #4'? In the unlikely event that they do more than take note of new planners-visible to mentions-of-the-word ratios, they might just notice how little the Head seems to care about the actual quality of learning at Hampstead School. But who are we kidding? It's OFSTED, whose priorities have never really been quality of learning.

Tuesday, 6 September 2016

A* in Journalistic Integrity

After being publicly shamed during results week for not publishing any photos or articles about Hampstead students, the Camden New Journal last Thursday assembled a GCSE report featuring a whole two photos from Hampstead school.

Despite initially reporting on the worshipful Camden School for Girls on page 3, the other schools in the borough were pushed to page 17, and only after another six paragraphs about - you guessed it - Camden School for Girls. Hampstead, however, came second to last of the schools, and were permitted an even-handed single paragraph of reporting. And even then, it was so lazily done they left in a typo: "[redacted name] was left owing £5 to his friend [redacted name] £5".

The Ham & High seemingly bit the Hampstead press release bullet, reporting on their website "a rise in every area of its results," although it only specified one rise, a "5 percent rise" in the E-BACC results, rather suggesting it may have been the largest of rises. Given last year results were down still from the heady heights of 63%, the school has work to do yet to drag the 5 G*-U bracket back to the legendary '5-year-trend' standard.

In Thursday's print copy, however, the results were there for all to see. Our suspicions were confirmed; the number of A*-As rose by just over 3% to 20.46%, and the heralded 5A*-Cs rose by even less, 2% up from last year's 54%. Despite this, the school featured on the penultimate page of the results special section (page 22) in a small bit matching the online content, and just to rub in the local bias, the paper gave away two pages (including the front page cover story) to a piece about the results of a former youth MP and student of - I don't believe it - Camden School for Girls.