Generate an appropriate single-sentence summary for the given text such that it includes the main topic of the text.

Q: The Conservative-controlled city council signed a 2011 deal with developer Stanhope, which has yet to submit a planning application. Leader Paul James said the "final scheme will be very different to what the public has seen before". However, the Labour group criticised how long it has been delayed. Mr James said the plans, to be discussed by cabinet in a private meeting, would be announced "within a week or two". 'Moving forward' Stanhope now has until the end of the month to submit a planning application for the new retail development - a deadline already extended twice. Kate Haigh, opposition leader of the Labour group, said: "I think the delays have been so long that it's time to consider what the people of Gloucester want nowadays, rather than in the context of five or six years ago when these plans were first put forward." Conservative Mr James said regeneration of this type "took a long time". He said: "There are complexities with the planning system, there are issues around land acquisition. But it is moving forward. "It will not be a major retail-led scheme because the world has moved on. And I've given a commitment, as well, that we will build a new indoor market on the site next to the new bus station, which is now on site and which people said would never happen." Stanhope declined to comment.

A: Councillors have clashed over plans for the "delayed" revamp of Gloucester's Kings Square.
****
Q: Rory Cellan-JonesTechnology correspondent@BBCRoryCJon Twitter But here's another thought - what if all of this is a huge waste of money which would be better spent on employing more teachers? That was the provocative question posed in a blog on the eve of BETT by the General Secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers. According to one newspaper headline Russell Hobby said "money spent by schools on fad iPads could have funded 8,000 teachers". Another translated it as "Schools should stop wasting money buying iPads and 'shiny gadgets' for pupils." When I caught up with Mr Hobby - on the phone rather than at BETT - he said his message had been somewhat exaggerated by those headlines. But he had wished to start a debate about the priorities for schools. "We're facing some very difficult spending decisions," he said, "we've got to ask ourselves, if we lost all the technology we have now would we actually go backwards?" He insisted that he was no Luddite - "it's the uncritical purchase of gadgets that worries me," he said. I pressed him for an example and and he came up with interactive whiteboards, rather than tablets. These expensive pieces of kit are now in just about every classroom in the country, and Mr Hobby is far from alone in his criticism. Plenty of teachers question their usefulness, and I have seen them employed in one school recently as surfaces on which to stick paper notices. Not exactly hi-tech… I took these criticisms to the man who has probably done more than anyone to promote the use of technology in British education. Dominic Savage is the founder of BETT and the director general of the British Educational Suppliers Association, which represents the companies selling technology into schools. "What an unfortunate message to be putting out," he said of Russell Hobby's attack on his life's work. We're asking teachers to do more and more every day. It's not a question of throwing teachers at the problem - it's asking how do we provide the technology that enables them to do what we are asking of them?" I challenged him to defend the investment in those whiteboards and he admitted that these had not really worked. He said early users who'd had extensive training had produced good results, But then a cost-cutting exercise by BECTA, the now-disbanded school technology quango. "It does not surprise me in the slightest that it did not have the impact it should have, but it's not the problem with the technology in that case." Where both men agree is that simply throwing money at technology without investing in teacher training does not work. And there's an issue of scale - bigger often isn't better. What often seem clever initiatives in a few well-funded schools then prove to be pretty useless when implemented wholesale by local councils or academy chains. Still, with little money to fund the big technology schemes we've seen over the past two decades, the problem may be solving itself. While the major tech companies still turn up in strength at events like BETT, their stands seemed sparsely populated. Creative teachers are turning to free software, cheap devices like the Raspberry Pi or even their pupils' mobile phones as they work out how to use technology to enhance their lessons. The digital transformation of education continues - but it's a much more decentralised and low-budget revolution.

A: Want to see how equipping every child with a tablet can transform the way they learn? Want to meet leading tech firms which promise that their products are the key to your school's future? Then come to BETT, the educational technology fair in the vast Excel complex in East London.
****
Q: By Justin ParkinsonBBC News Magazine At first sight not much unites Beyonce and Max Mosley. But they, and several other celebrities and organisations, have become victims of the "Streisand effect". In 2005, Mike Masnick, founder of the Techdirt website, coined the term. Two years earlier singer Barbra Streisand unsuccessfully sued photographer Kenneth Adelman, who was documenting the coastline of California, for including her clifftop home in Malibu. The resulting publicity helped drive 420,000 visits in a month to the site where the photo was published. According to documents filed in court, images of Streisand's house had been downloaded only six times before the legal action. It's not always a fight over privacy. In February last year the Buzzfeed website published a selection of singer Beyonce's "fiercest moments" - mocking her facial expressions while performing at the Superbowl. Her publicist reportedly contacted it to ask that seven of the most "unflattering" photos be removed. Buzzfeed refused and republished exactly this selection with the headline: "The 'Unflattering' Photos Beyonce's Publicist Doesn't Want You To See". The exposure of the unflattering photos was magnified. A few months later it was reported that lawyers for Pippa Middleton, sister of the Duchess of Cambridge, had asked for the removal of a parody Twitter feed, which offered ridiculously obvious lifestyle advice in her name, such as "Avoid getting lost by consulting with a map" and "A party isn't much fun without people attending". Its following increased. In 2008 the Church of Scientology reportedly tried to get a video featuring film star Tom Cruise talking about his faith, designed for viewing by its followers only, removed from websites after it was leaked. The publicity meant it became shared more widely. In 2012, Argyll and Bute Council banned nine-year-old Martha Payne from taking pictures of her school meals and posting them, along with dismissive ratings out of 10, on a blog. Her family complained and this was overturned, amid much publicity. To date the blog has had more than 10 million hits and Martha has raised more than £130,000 for charity. You don't need to be famous to suffer from the Streisand effect. Spaniard Mario Costeja Gonzalez fought a long legal battle for the right to be forgotten. He complained that a search of his name in Google brought up newspaper articles from 16 years ago about a sale of property to recover money he owed. He enjoyed a landmark victory to establish the right to be forgotten. But it is unlikely he will ever be forgotten. As of this moment, his name conjures up hundreds of thousands of Google search results. The Streisand effect But Max Mosley is arguably the greatest example. He is suing Google for continuing to display in search results images of him with prostitutes at a sex party, citing alleged breaches of the Data Protection Act and misuse of private information. Every time he makes a legal move in his crusade over privacy, there's a danger it becomes more likely people will seek out the very images he is complaining about. The 74-year-old former president of Formula One's governing body FIA wants Google to block pictures first published in the now-defunct tabloid News of the World, which he successfully sued in 2008. "As the gateway to the internet Google makes enormous profits and has great influence, so I have not taken this action lightly," he has said in a statement. His lawyers add that the company should not be allowed "to act as an arbiter of what is lawful and what is not". Google says it has been working with Mosley "to address his concerns". But is there a risk that Mosley will cause himself more embarrassment by bringing a fairly old, and perhaps half-forgotten, news story back to people's attention? A survey of Twitter shows some users are posting the pictures that he is keen to remove. "Anyone trying to get something banned is always going to be of more interest than something that people don't seem bothered by," says Jenny Afia, head of talent at the law firm Schillings. "It's a spark for curiosity." In previous generations there's no doubt it was more straightforward to attempt to suppress information or images. The ease of sharing now almost means that nothing can really be suppressed. You could argue that the internet makes attempts to guard your privacy risky on a scale proportional to the likelihood of your privacy being meaningfully breached in the first place. If there was a danger that lots of people would circulate a private photo of you doing something embarrassing, it's very likely that trying to suppress it will have the opposite effect. If there was little danger that the photo would have been circulated, an attempt at suppression might not trigger the Streisand effect. There are endless mischief-makers who would dedicate themselves to propagating information that someone wanted hidden, just for the very fact of the attempt to hide it. Mosley is a wealthy man used to publicity. Yet suing could mean a stressful, drawn-out court case, covered in detail by the media. "It's a horrible dilemma for people who are faced with horrible or untrue stories," says Afia. "That's where Max Mosley is very brave to keep fighting. Many people decide to let it go." For the likes of Mosley and Costeja Gonzalez, the principle surely supersedes the actual effect of legal action. They effectively end up fighting for the right of others to more easily safeguard their privacy. Even at the de facto cost of their own. And there's a clear difference between those fighting for a right to privacy and those, like Beyonce's representatives, who are merely trying to manage a reputation or public image. There the Streisand effect is potent. If your reaction to mockery is to try and squash it, there will be lots more mockery. Public relations expert Mark Borkowski says modern celebrities, open to Twitter trolls and online parodies, need "the skin of a rhino". "If it's really, really trivial you have to make the decision about whether you're going react to the person who's satirising you and potentially make it much worse." Subscribe to the BBC News Magazine's email newsletter to get articles sent to your inbox.

A:
Former motor racing boss Max Mosley is suing Google for continuing to display photographs he says breach his privacy. But does pressing for information to be kept private, or suppressed, often have the opposite effect?
****
