New PHS - Moderation redux

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Jun 2008, 19:28

OK, I'll try again then. I was making a point about an accusation made by someone posting under the name 'ghost' over on the EN comments section:

Personally I think it was a cynical act of vandalism to draw peoples attention to the school, which has backfired severely.

Now, clearly I have no way of knowing who 'ghost' is, although I can take an educated guess, so my criticism isn't directed at any one individual or group but it's an outrageous statement for anyone to make, based on no evidence whatsoever.

If and when the police officially conclude that there is no evidence of vandalism (politically-motivated or otherwise) I'm sure that 'ghost' will be the first to apologise to PHS students, teachers and parents. Closely followed by Marilyne Maclaren.

Post by **wangi** » 05 Jun 2008, 19:32

I really don't see the need to draw attention to what is clearly a daft comment posted on the EN website. I'm sure you agree, talk is cheap there, with many posters posting first and thinking later. Does it really move things along to highlight such stupidity?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 05 Jun 2008, 19:43

Sure, the internet if full of nutters with crackpot theories. What makes this one particularly interesting, and pertinent to the thread, is the identity of the author. I challenge the author to reveal his identity or to withdraw his remarks, which are grossly insulting to everyone connected with the school.

Post by **wangi** » 05 Jun 2008, 20:31

As I said above - we will not descend into discussing personalities here. It is that persons choice to post using an alias on the EN site (i.e. not even this site). You are giving them undue attention and more publicity to their daft claim. It's not worth it.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 05 Jun 2008, 22:30

Just so I'm clear on this; TP will not condone discussion of the personality of daft anonymous posters even if it happens to be a daft post on a portobello matter. -Correct?

Items that have previoulsy been published unmoderated on the Edinburgh Evening News will be censored or unwelcome here on TP?

And just when things were going so well.

I do agree that prolonging this tangent is inappropriate for this thread and maybe we should adjourn to another.

Post by **wangi** » 06 Jun 2008, 09:31

Discuss the issue, not the individuals / personalities.

The statement made in that EN comments stand on its own merit, or lack of - there is no need to bring the question of who made the comment into the discussion. This is not a witch hunt. Please respect the privacy of others.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 06 Jun 2008, 10:07

I would argue that the question of who made the comment is important in this case and relevant to the discussion. If the comment was made by a random nutter then we could dismiss it as insignificant but if, for example, it was made by a leading member of PPAG (as I strongly suspect) then it's a different matter.

Let's be clear about this. This person is accusing supporters of a new school of deliberately vandalising the existing school and causing £50000 worth of damage in order to further their aims. If you are going to level that kind of accusation then you invite speculation as to your identity and to your motive.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 06 Jun 2008, 14:26

Bob Jefferson wrote: I would argue that the question of who made the comment is important in this case and relevant to the discussion. If the comment was made by a random nutter then we could dismiss it as insignificant but if, for example, it was made by a leading member of PPAG (as I strongly suspect) then it's a different matter.

I agree, we have all used,are using anonymous, user names but that does not excuse or justify allegations against members of a school community, especially when it is alleged that they deliberately set about damaging the school with the specific intent of depriving kids of education time. For the purpose of "drawing attention to the school".

And if anonymity is used as a deliberate foil why should it be immune from discussion? We all know the people or groups of people that Junk is pointing the figure at. Could be me, my daughter, my business partner anyone that supports a new school in the park. To me its perfectly fair to discuss the motive and intent behind the allegations.

So to borrow Bob's phrasing; is Junk a random nutter or a PPAG supporter? Wangi doesn't want on board speculation about personality so I'm going to keep stum on my own views. Although with the apparent knowledge displayed about the park, I would rule out random nutter.

Here's what Junk said in the Evening News comments section on 3rd November 2006.

You can make up your own minds if its a random nutter or PPAG ?

Quote: Junk, Legal Opinion Evening News / 3:50pm 3 Nov 2006

Junk wrote:It is quite plain to see that the Council have completely ignored that fact that there is a written LEGAL OPINION by Roy Martin QC to the effect that Portobello Park and Golf course are indeed "COMMON GOOD LANDS".

This means that anyone with any sense what soever will oppose any building on that land as the cost of the land will have to be paid by the council into the common good fund, makiing the cost of the school/s astronomical.

I think the council already know that, but must have forgotten to let us know.

I beleive that the "Legal Opinion" which Councillor Perry spoke of at the public meetings must be that one, as so far, the council have refused to let anyone see theirs. Quoting sec 36 FOI Act.

I believe that the legals costs over the next few years will also be very high and probably borne by us, the punetrs who pay out taxes

junk wrote:

thats twice Seanie, we heard you the first time. Unlike porty online/pfans online/lets build on our green space online, web site the moderators of this site will allow comments for and against any arguements. You apparently work for the council, you tell us what the difference is "

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 06 Jun 2008, 15:57

What a pile of Junk.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 06 Jun 2008, 16:39

Bob Jefferson wrote:OK, I'll try again then. I was making a point about an accusation made by someone posting under the name 'ghost' over on the EN comments section:

Personally I think it was a cynical act of vandalism to draw peoples attention to the school, which has backfired severely.
Now, clearly I have no way of knowing who 'ghost' is ...

Are we discussing 'Junk' or is it 'Ghost' you two are trying to identify ? (Seems that the EN has deleted the comment in question so I can't find out for myself.)

I agree wholeheartedly that the comment you've quoted is both ludicrous and offensive, but trying to identify an anonymous poster on another internet site seems totally futile. Additionally - especially if the EN has, indeed, deleted the comment - it is obvious that all that has happened is that Ghost/Junk has successfully wound up those he/she wanted to get at and, despite being deleted on the EN, gathered more readers on here. That, I'm sure, is bringing him/her great delight.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 06 Jun 2008, 17:32

Agreed - we have all wasted enough time on this idiot. Glad to hear the comment has been removed.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 06 Jun 2008, 20:53

Hmm, my last post was deleted but all I wanted to say was that the EN comment in question has not in fact been removed. If anyone would like further information regarding the identity of 'Junk' or that matter 'Ghost' I will be happy to continue this discussion over private channels.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 07 Jun 2008, 04:51

I'm not interested in IDing Junk and Ghost. This is neither a courtroom nor cold case laboratory.

If simply drawing attention to these "personalities" and their baseless, poisoned and cynically calculated accusations can somehow stem the flow? Its a result.

Its a mistake to think they/he or she are idiots. They may demonstrate idiocy but in this case.the sum of the whole is less than the parts.

I wish they would just agree to compromise. The kids, parents. parent council, councilors and staff would prefer to have the entire 19ha of Portobello Park as a canvas for a flagship educational and community facility. The wider community of edinburgh , who will pay for the school would be happy for us to have a high spec, high end School with the proviso that it has to be value for money,

We and they recognise that there are other individuals or groups that wish to protect their current position and who are against housing on the park. I support the latter and believe the former ought to be accommodated to a reasonable extent.

When the school is built on 15% of the park, it will be a bit of a triumph, not for the campaigners, whose kids will likely never see it, but for the students at the time, the staff, parents and guardians. It will also be a compromise for what might have been? The ambitions for the new school in the park will likely fall short due ti the intensity of the argument about building in the park. The next time round, in maybe 30,40 or 50 years time the argument will have shifted from where to how good are we going to make this? If we all got together and compromised we couldbe having that conversation now.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 07 Jun 2008, 11:36

Bob Jefferson wrote: I wanted to say was that the EN comment in question has not in fact been removed.

Apologies. You are correct Bob. The comment is still there. I had been looking at the comments on the most recent letter page link you had put up and not the earlier one from the 3 June.

One thing is certain; PHS is frequently in the news. I was at the hairdresser (not a local one) yesterday and was chatting to the stylist and the trainee about my job and where I lived. 'Portobello is that school that's always in the paper' , said the young lad.