Portobello Park Action Group

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Jan 2009, 11:22

I got my annual free copy of the apparently "sold-out" PPAG calendar. It is full of nice photos of things that will still be there after the School is built on the park.

The Calendar was posted through our office letter box, in an an unmarked envelope. Inside was a typed note, which didn't go down to well with my colleagues. Here it is:

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 13 Jan 2009, 12:24

I think that's quite funny (wasn't me by the way, I can hardly walk

). Admit it, it's the kind of thing you would do!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Jan 2009, 14:50

Epykat wrote:Admit it, it's the kind of thing you would do!

I would consider the Calendar type prank, I laughed at that bit, as I did last year.

It is the message of ill will that is totally uncalled for and beyond the pale. Someone's has gone out of their way to procure an anonymous envelope, type up an anoymous note and then hand-deliver it. Something that could have been quite funny comes over as no-more than pre-meditated nastiness.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Jan 2009, 17:47

I don't think it's funny at all. I think it's sad, pathetic and cowardly.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 13 Jan 2009, 21:09

Oh come on. Where's your sense of humour?

The two of you could get it all off your chests by writing to the Evening News

It could have been worse - at least you didn't have to pay for it.

Post by **wangi** » 13 Jan 2009, 21:38

Or used cut out letters...

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Jan 2009, 21:50

Anyone who has followed the EN comments sections over the last few months will know that this isn't a one-off 'prank'. I would copy and paste some examples but a) I can't be bothered and b) the worst were removed as unsuitable in any case. There are one or two very unpleasant characters out there in the PPAG lunatic fringe.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 14 Jan 2009, 00:08

Representatives of 2 other wave 3 schools said that their parent councils had received anonymous letters urging them to kick up a stink about phs getting all of the first tranche of funding. A coincidence?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 14 Jan 2009, 07:25

I imagine they would be treated with the contempt they deserve, but it would be good to see a copy. At least two prominent PPAG members have very distinctive writing styles.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 14 Jan 2009, 11:49

I would love to see a copy of the letter, the other school reps certainly saw it for what it was, contempt is an appropriate description.

Writing styles are distinctive but not neccesarily conclusive. Generally speaking PPAG written communications have been poorly crafted and all we can do is hazard a guess at who has been the author (s). I mean take the PPAG petition:

"We call upon the City of Edinburgh Council to consider and evaluate a full range of options and alternatives, cost comparisons and funding options for the re-provisioning of Portobello High School and St John’s Primary School."

My English is far from perfect but I cannot believe they let this out into the public domain, knowing that they would ultimately present it to councillors and officials. Even just making a good presentation to the public who are being asked to sign it ought to have been a consideration.

This single sentence contains 4 "and"'s. Then to make matters worse it goes on to state the conditions that need to be met BEFORE building on the park!!! It is incredible and doesn't even do the job required- so who is the author? The whole thing was a joke at the time and has ultimately become self-defeating.

seashell · Post by **seashell** » 14 Jan 2009, 13:37

Porty wrote:"We call upon the City of Edinburgh Council to consider and evaluate a full range of options and alternatives, cost comparisons and funding options for the re-provisioning of Portobello High School and St John’s Primary School."

My English is far from perfect but I cannot believe they let this out into the public domain, knowing that they would ultimately present it to councillors and officials. Even just making a good presentation to the public who are being asked to sign it ought to have been a consideration.

This single sentence contains 4 "and"'s. Then to make matters worse it goes on to state the conditions that need to be met BEFORE building on the park!!! It is incredible and doesn't even do the job required- so who is the author? The whole thing was a joke at the time and has ultimately become self-defeating.

That opening sentence would have been greatly improved had the writer ever considered using a handy little device called the semi-colon.

Punctuation makes sentences make sense. Grammar is our friend, not our enemy.

oh - and where did they come up with that ghastly word "re-provisioning"??? Given tht "provision" means "an act of providing; that which is provided or prepared; measures taken beforehand", this is sheer gobbledegook of the highest form. Which just goes to show how much a new school with high educational standards is needed!

foxy · Post by **foxy** » 14 Jan 2009, 16:11

Porty wrote: I mean take the PPAG petition:

"We call upon the City of Edinburgh Council to consider and evaluate a full range of options and alternatives, cost comparisons and funding options for the re-provisioning of Portobello High School and St John’s Primary School."

- so who is the author?

Well I'm not Inspector Clouseau, but the first signature on the on-line petition is a Diana Cairns, maybe that's a clue?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 14 Jan 2009, 17:13

Could be a clue but doesn't mean that Diana Cairns penned the statement. Could be that the author asked her to look over it and sign it if she thought it read ok?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 14 Jan 2009, 17:23

Porty wrote:"We call upon the City of Edinburgh Council to consider and evaluate a full range of options and alternatives, cost comparisons and funding options for the re-provisioning of Portobello High School and St John’s Primary School."

Irrespective of any grammar considerations you may have, the petition achieved it's objective. The CoEC considered and evaluated loads of options before agreeing to Portobello Park as the best site.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Jan 2009, 07:13

The author of the Portygreenkeepers website certainly has a distinctive style.

Almost sold out again - Hurray (sic) to get the last few

Do Not be Mislead (sic) - Newsflash

While another well known PPAG
supporter tends to write in
strange truncated lines
like this.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 15 Jan 2009, 10:26

I see what you mean.

I had a closer look at the PPAG blurb and here's what it says:

"The Loss of green space in Portobello Petition to Residents, parents and users of Portobello Park was created by Porty Greenkeepers and written by Diana Cairns "

Diana states: "This land belongs to the people of Edinburgh and should not be sold or built on until a full debate is had and all the options, including keeping the land for public recreation, have been fully consulted upon with people who use the facility, live or work in Portobello and Joppa."

She specifies the conditions that must be met prior to selling or building on the park, which are; "until a full debate is had .... all the options consulted upon"

The lady got what she asked for.

"

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 15 Jan 2009, 14:48

.....And the land is not changing ownership as it is not a disposal.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 15 Jan 2009, 19:59

PPAG wrote:live or work in Portobello and Joppa.

Don't the people who live on the other side of Milton Road get a say too? I doubt those who live there would define themselves as living in either place?

And if it's now admitted that the park belongs to Edinburgh rather than Portobello alone, does that mean compensation for everyone in the CEC area!!??

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 15 Jan 2009, 20:24

Pal of Porty wrote:
Porty wrote:"We call upon the City of Edinburgh Council to consider and evaluate a full range of options and alternatives, cost comparisons and funding options for the re-provisioning of Portobello High School and St John’s Primary School."
Irrespective of any grammar considerations you may have, the petition achieved it's objective. The CoEC considered and evaluated loads of options before agreeing to Portobello Park as the best site.

In fact, I have to admit that they have achieved everything they set out to. They can now quite happily disband with their heads held high. They may even wish to consider staging a victory celebration in Portobello Park before the bulldozers move in. Then they can recompense the people of Portobello, Joppa, Australia etc with the leftover funds.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Jan 2009, 17:27

Poppy wrote: And if it's now admitted that the park belongs to Edinburgh rather than Portobello alone, does that mean compensation for everyone in the CEC area!!??

Your use of the "if" word is wise. It is not easy to follow what Diana and/or PPAG admit to or believe? Back in 2006 Diana is identified as the petition author and states unequivocally that

Diana Cairns-PPAG Petition wrote:"the land belongs to the people of Edinburgh".

More recently (Feb 2008) in the Evening News she informs us:

Diana Cairns wrote:"The land belongs to the people of Portobello, who would have to be financially compensated via the common good fund for its loss."- Diana Cairns Evening News Feb 18th 2008

So Whoosh!!! suddenly the people of the rest of Edinburgh are robbed of their land . Yet it is the people of Portobello who are to be compensated and only the people in Joppa and Portobello get a say on how Edinburgh's £40M should be spent??

Little wonder people are unconvinced.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 07 Feb 2009, 11:59

What are they up to now? Around 10:30 am today I spotted several PPAG supporters, among them Dave Connelly and local councillor Stephen Hawkins, on Portobello Park near the football changing rooms. They appeared to be digging a hole and were taking photos.

It was rather cold, though not nearly as chilly as the reception I might have expected, so I didn't hang around to find out. Perhaps they were planting a tree, a symbol of hope?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Feb 2009, 13:04

Ars e hole?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 07 Feb 2009, 13:26

Porty wrote:Ars e hole?

there is no surprise here really - PPAG have been digging a hole with their arguments from day 1. Thought Hawkins might have abstained from ceremony tho!

Izzie · Post by **Izzie** » 07 Feb 2009, 16:51

Took the dogs past the park and there is a new bench next to the changing rooms

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 07 Feb 2009, 17:15

That's nice. I wonder who paid for it.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Feb 2009, 12:39

Seems like they are hellbent on taking the. Case to the bench!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Feb 2009, 12:43

Perhaps they are trying that red Indian remains plot that I came up with? I did suggest they sneak into the park under cover of broad daylight when there's no one around.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 08 Feb 2009, 12:53

Izzie wrote:Took the dogs past the park and there is a new bench next to the changing rooms

izzie- "past the park"? You appear to be implying that it is possible to walk dogs in the area without going into the park! Surely you are mistaken? PPAG will no doubt be arguing that in future dog walkers may have to be bussed out of the area to exercise. - what a scandal!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 Feb 2009, 13:49

I would have thought that PPAG's time might be better served organising a clean up. The area that the dog walkers use is full of litter and rubbish and stinks, not surprisingly, of dog excrement, which makes the idea of people going there to 'ramble' all the more ridiculous.

The pitches are also in a very poor condition and I would hope that when they are re-configured there will be a noticeable improvement.

Izzie · Post by **Izzie** » 08 Feb 2009, 17:50

Porty wrote:
Izzie wrote:Took the dogs past the park and there is a new bench next to the changing rooms
izzie- "past the park"? You appear to be implying that it is possible to walk dogs in the area without going into the park! Surely you are mistaken? PPAG will no doubt be arguing that in future dog walkers may have to be bussed out of the area to exercise. - what a scandal!

I don't like going into the park as Bob said it is filthy and the dogs might catch something.I have to walk them past the park to get to the beach for a run and a swim,or If just a quick walk down to the burn we go.
There is lots of places I take the dogs and I don't use the car

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 08 Feb 2009, 18:44

Izzie wrote:I don't like going into the park as Bob said it is filthy and the dogs might catch something.

Izzie, I think that says it all really. I'll file that quote for future use.

I certainly wouldn't want my kids playing there.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 08 Feb 2009, 18:59

Maybe a more active presence of the apparently local environmental wardens would help regarding the dog fouling situation in various parts of Porty. I know yon Councillor Childs was on about dog foul being a local problem in one of her numerous e-mail shots.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 09 Feb 2009, 16:09

Strange there's no pictures of dog shit in the PPag calendar or dog walkers for that matter.

Grunk · Post by **Grunk** » 09 Feb 2009, 16:36

What is a public good fund?

Is it another pot of money that the council can waste?

Will they in effect be paying themselves compensation?

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 09 Feb 2009, 17:27

Grunk wrote:What is a public good fund?

You mean a common good fund?