Page 4, 7th March 1986

7th March 1986
Page 4
Page 4, 7th March 1986 — The position on De La Salle

Report an error

Noticed an error on this page?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it.


Locations: Birmingham


Related articles

De La Salle Offers No Alternative To Closure

Page 1 from 28th March 1986

De La Salle Faces Closure After Talks Collapse

Page 1 from 21st February 1986

De La Salle Trustees Challenged

Page 1 from 7th March 1986

Closure Date For De La Salle

Page 3 from 24th October 1986

De La Salle Places Saved By Baker

Page 1 from 26th December 1986

The position on De La Salle

REGARDING De La Salle, it is clear that the inability to solve the problem of trusteeship has effectively put an end to any further negotiations on the possibility of a merger between De La Salle and the Liverpool Institute and inevitably would have proved (and has proved) a fatal stumbling block in negotiations with any other educational institution.

What emerges from your article, Feb 2 1, is that there are two diametrically opposed positions on this crucial issue. Bishop Mullins maintains that there was "not a problem" and that "The CEC acts as trustees and providing body to other similar establishments such as Newman College, Birmingham."

Brother Joseph Hendron, the Provincial, states in his letter to Archbishop Worlock, that the De La Salle Order "could not support the proposed merger given the consequences, particularly legal and financial" and Brother Wilfrid, Principal of De La Salle College, is quoted as saying, in reference to the CEC, that "firm guarantees had been absent."

On behalf of the staff of De La Salle, the bewildered, injured party in this wrangle who are now destined to lose their jobs, how can these two positions be held so independently of one another? (Dr) Patrick Holland Manchester

blog comments powered by Disqus