Okay, so, as you probably know, we had been chasing the LEA to either issue a second/amended proposed statement or finalise so that we could appeal. We were expecting a finalised to push us to either appeal or drop out.
Last Thursday we received an amended proposed. Surprised, we assumed this meant that the LEA were still willing to negotiate.
Been pretty poorly over the last week, so only got around to calling them today to ask for a meeting (EP had said she was willing to attend a meeting to clarify her report and help get the wording in part 3 tighter) and ...... they said no. 
First she said there's no time because she is off on holiday in a week's time. Then she said there would be no point anyway, because they have no intention of making any further amendments.
Basically, she said they will only specify and quantify what has been specifically specified and quantified in the SA reports. I pointed out that the SA reports are all produced by LEA employees and having spoken to them they told me it's 'not their job to specify/quantify to that level of detail, only to identify the type of provision required (reading between the lines - we've been told we aren't allowed to 
). So, the LEA tell their EPs etc not to specify or quantify, which in and of itself isn't illegal, but, then they refuse to specify or quantify their statements other 'because it's not specified or quantified in the reports'. So they have effectively circumvented the blanket policy thing by laying the blame at report, rather than statement level and stating there isn't enough evidence in the reports.
She also said "we don't quantify in terms of time, frequency" 
to which I said well that is a blanket policy then and I believe that's illegal.
I suggested mediation - she said we could if we wanted to, but no point as they aren't going to shift and will not specify or quantify any further.
I explained that things have moved on since we made our amendments and we now have a clearer idea of the type of provision available at secondary, so would in fact like to reword some of our rewords, so-to-speak. Explained that the tight level of quantification in one particular area is in effect obsolete at secondary, so we would welcome their help, along with the EP, in getting that bit right and that what we would like is to sit down together and agree something that works for us all and still provides ds with legally protected support. She said no - that there is no time for a meeting and they aren't going to change anything anyway, so no point. (Stuck-record springs to mind. )
Lots more was said and it was a resonable and calm conversation - up until the point I embarrassed myself by starting to cry. 
She was surprised to hear some of the things the school have said and done and that I had had to fight to get ds recognised and supported by the school in the first place. She was ok really and we had a frank and reasonable discussion, but she still isn't going to budge.
Oh - and of course I was told we can appeal if we want to, but we will lose because there is simply no evidence in the reports to support the quantification that we are asking for.
She said we had to trust the school to provide the support in the statement and that the school had no choice anyway once a statement had been issued - I pointed out that I no longer trust the school, given the things that have gone on, which I explained to her earlier.
We discussed the qualifications of the person who will be working with ds on emotional literacy and she said the statement does say someone with 'knowledge and understanding of ASD' and therefore the person doing this would have to be suitably experienced. I explained I had discussed this with the EP after the school stated categorically that they wouldn't be employing anyone or sending anyone on additional training courses and that the 1 day whole school awareness all staff attended last year was enough. EP agreed that the awareness day wasn't enough and whoever it is should definitely have some specific training in anxiety and emotional literacy in ASD. The school have already said they aren't going to train someone up and the statement allows them to do this - therefore the statement is not sufficiently specified or quantified. SO's answer? It's not clear in the report, so we won't be changing it. AAARGH! I pointed out that their own EP, who wrote the bloody report agreed it wasn't clear enough and wanted to attend a meeting to straighten it out, but she said it doesn't matter, it's not in the report so they don't have to include it in the statement.
So, we are definitely off to appeal - I knew that anyway, but am now thinking that if that's their line of tack we are going to have to find a way to get independent evidence on the level and frequency of support and the qualifications of the person supplying it. Who is best for this Independent EP?
Finally, she said that the school have said if we succeed in getting the statement tightened up then they will be unable to meet his needs. I asked if that meant he could lose his place at a school he's been at for 7 years and she said yes! I said surely that constitutes as an illegal exclusion based on disability and then she said the LEA would press the school to keep him, particularly as its his transitional year.
I also pointed out that the school is or has already supplied the support we are trying to quantify, we just want it set in stone so that they can't muck about with it whenever they like and so that his secondary will keep up the same level of support. Had to point out the irony of a school saying they can't meet ds's needs as set down in a statement that actually describes the support they are already giving him. Said I didn't get why they would say this unless it's financially motivated and she said she was confused about that as well.
Whole bloody thing is farcical - round and round with ridiculous arguments that either manipulate to stay just within the law - or downright flaut the law but don't care who knows about it because no-one can do a damn thing about it!