Portobello Park Action Group

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 11 Dec 2008, 18:26

According to the evening news today, in the 'around town' section:

A community group in Portobello is selling its own 2009 calendar featuring pictures of the local park and golf course.

Portobello Park Action Group which is fighting proposals to build a new school on the park, is selling the calendar to raise funds for the campaign.

No doubt in the shops as we speak.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Dec 2008, 21:57

Local traders wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Any shop selling it would be boycotted by hundreds of local parents. I would personally ensure it.

BeachBum · Post by **BeachBum** » 11 Dec 2008, 22:15

Bob Jefferson wrote:Local traders wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Any shop selling it would be boycotted by hundreds of local parents. I would personally ensure it.

Guess the crowd behind it wont be making many sales then.....

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Dec 2008, 22:26

Residents of Park Avenue, their extended families, misled golfers, other misled, misinformed or misguided people. People who mistakenly think they are supporting a group whose core aim is to save green space or who have a vague feeling that by buying this calendar they might be doing something to save the planet. Erm, calendar collectors?

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 11 Dec 2008, 23:06

Ever thought of doing a calendar for your side, Bob?

Not necessarily along the lines of the Farmers Calendar, though it might help boost sales

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 11 Dec 2008, 23:13

SoupDragon wrote: Not necessarily along the lines of the Farmers Calendar, though it might help boost sales

To quote ecm "hahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha'!

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Dec 2008, 23:26

Excellent idea Soupers. Marya has already volunteered to be Miss January.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 11 Dec 2008, 23:33

What month will you be, Bob?

I do hope Porty and PoP will be posing with light sabres

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Dec 2008, 23:53

Fortunately, for all concerned, that won't be necessary. We don't need gimmicks or scams for we are armed with the light sabre of Truth.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 12 Dec 2008, 12:19

Bob Jefferson wrote:Local traders wouldn't touch it with a barge pole. Any shop selling it would be boycotted by hundreds of local parents. I would personally ensure it.

How would you achieve this?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 Dec 2008, 12:49

Haven't given it much thought Franck as I don't expect it to be necessary. In the first instance I would explain to the trader concerned that this is something that is likely to cause great offence to many of his/her customers. I should think that would suffice.

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 12 Dec 2008, 13:16

Bob Jefferson wrote:Haven't given it much thought Franck as I don't expect it to be necessary. In the first instance I would explain to the trader concerned that this is something that is likely to cause great offence to many of his/her customers. I should think that would suffice.

OK.Just a thought though, as a parent of children who are directly affected by new schools ( which I'm 100% for on the park) I wouldnt boycott any local shop purely because they stock a calender that supports something I disagree with, I'd just chose not to purchase it.Freedom of speech and all that.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 12 Dec 2008, 20:37

Bob Jefferson wrote: In the first instance I would explain to the trader concerned that this is something that is likely to cause great offence to many of his/her customers. I should think that would suffice.

It would cause me great offence to have you telling me what I should and shouldn't buy. I'm an adult - I can make up my own mind.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 Dec 2008, 22:10

I had in mind the floating voter, not the lost causes. But seriously, where do you stand on this now?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 12 Dec 2008, 22:37

Franck wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:Haven't given it much thought Franck as I don't expect it to be necessary. In the first instance I would explain to the trader concerned that this is something that is likely to cause great offence to many of his/her customers. I should think that would suffice.
OK.Just a thought though, as a parent of children who are directly affected by new schools ( which I'm 100% for on the park) I wouldnt boycott any local shop purely because they stock a calender that supports something I disagree with, I'd just chose not to purchase it.Freedom of speech and all that.

I'm with Franck- a trader should be comfortable, have faith , have integrity in every product they purvey. Let the customer decide what they want to buy.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 Dec 2008, 23:34

Porty wrote:a trader should be comfortable, have faith , have integrity in every product they purvey.

Indeed. Which is why no-one would touch it with a barge pole.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Dec 2008, 00:08

Yeah the choice should be theirs not yours or mine.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Dec 2008, 00:16

Are you saying caveat emptor?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Dec 2008, 00:57

Well maybe.

I have only seen the PPAG 2007 Calendar and even then it was brief, very brief.; no longer than it took me to pick it up from being delivered free , realising what it was, then dumping it in the bin. Therefore I am unclear as to what money is being raised for? Other than the "global" saving the park. I mean if you are asking people for money you should say what it is for, does the 2008 calendar make it clear?

You and I have been PFANS supporters for 3 years and I've never been asked for a penny, never been tasked with raising a penny, you don't need money to follow your cause. So why do they need it? At very least they should tell people the specific purpose.

It very much reminds me of the PCATS situation. PCATS raised money, a lot of money, for a specific cause: to defeat the superstore planning application back in 2004/5. Now 3 or 4 years later, the battle won, they still hold thousands of pounds of the community's money. Is it legal - I doubt it. Is it moral- no way. The organisation died with its purpose.

What is a now elected councillor doing being chairperson of a group that illigetimatelly holds money belonging to the community?

And now its happening again, with many of the same people at the helm. They claim to have collected thousand of pounds from "sold out" calendars. Yet they have never said what they intend doing with the money?
At least PCATS had a specific purpose and a form of accounts published on their website. Albeit the accounts wouldn't pass muster for a trainee bookeeper. Take a look at the Portygreenkeeprs site- can you see any accounts?

Where are PPAG's accounts? They claim to have sold 800 2007 calendars at £6 each, thats £4,800 plus this years take-plus the bucket collections in the days that they could get people to their meetings. It is a substancial amount of now invisible money. No accountability whatsoever.

How can the general public be sure PPAG and the people at its core are not just petty criminals? I'm not saying they are but there is no accountability and huge questionmarks over their general integrity.

They consistentlty claim to have a financial warchest, yet they have not publically committed to ANY action that costs money.Who holds the money? Who police' s who holds the money? Is it being raised under false pretences? There are no specifics.

I can safely say that if PFANS raised money from the general public and were less than totally transparent about how much they had and what it was going to used for? I would immediately disassociate myself.

Getting back to the issue in question. If I were appraoched as a high street trader and asked to sell the PPAG calender. I would need to be really clear on what the funds were gong to be used for and seek some assurance that is in fact what would happen. No way the PPAG peddlers are giving out that sort of detail.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 13 Dec 2008, 01:25

Buyer Beware
yup
Freedom of speech
has to pass without question

Luckily we are a free society

If someone wants to stock the calendars they can if we belive in free speech, they also have to expect customers to say what they think

same if they choose not to stock it

Its called democracy

but if someone does have the power
and a pointy bargepole could they please get my younger daughter to tidy her room

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Dec 2008, 02:05

Agreed. I'm all for democarcy and free speech. Fortunately- nay deservedly its being going PHS way the last 6 weeks or so. I know you, are indebted to St John's, even more so than I, (based purely on numbers of children/clangers). Im genuinely sorry that they have to wait but I'm equally glad they will be in a better place when it comes around. Out of the hands of evil.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Dec 2008, 10:51

Don't forget that PPAG is also inviting people to donate to its Paypal account. From its website:

Make a Donation

If you would like to help to save our green spaces, in particular Portobello Park and Golf course, then please either;

click the "Make a Donation" button below, (However there is a small Paypal admin charge to us)

Send a cheque made payable to Portobello Park Action Group to the address below

Send a postal order or other money order to the address below

You can also pay directly via your own bank either in person, over the internet, by phone or to our bank in person.

The following details are for the PPAG account

Bank of Scotland a/c no: 06001267 Sort Code: 80-18-31
Portobello High Street Edinburgh

Portobello Park Action Group
26 Park Avenue, EH151JT

So, the money is to be used to 'save' Portobello Park, 'save' the Golf Course (which is under no threat whatsoever) and to 'save' green spaces in general. That is a pretty wide remit. Almost as wide, in fact, as Gordon Brown's to save the world.

I assume that most of the money raised will be used to pay legal and other professional fees in order to fight the planning application. Incredibly, they will be using the community's money in an attempt to prevent the community's children from getting the new school so they desperately need. I wonder how many people actually realise this?

It is complete nonsense to say that you support a new school if you are blocking the only viable site. That is the position taken by PPAG. That is the position taken by Stephen Hawkins. Don't give them a penny.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Dec 2008, 13:46

Has anyone got a copy of the 2008 job? It is more than likely towerbank parents are buying the thing. Without realising that their money will be used in attempt to stop their kids new school being built- different if it says so on the tin? Does it? - a local community group? - sounds cuddly doesn't it?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Dec 2008, 13:56

Precisely, and that's my problem with it. Many people will buy this thing without realising the implications, without making an informed choice.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 13 Dec 2008, 20:40

Bob Jefferson wrote:I had in mind the floating voter, not the lost causes. But seriously, where do you stand on this now?

In the same place I've always been but even more incredulous at how vindictive this debate has become.

I don't want the school on the golfie (there IS NO PARK!) and I think there are going to be an awful lot of disappointed punters when they realise that the wonderful, state of the art, 21st Century, super school isn't as good as they had been led to believe it would be. Hopefully though they'll get their bunny rabbits and ponies in their 'in the park' utopia.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Dec 2008, 20:47

Well, I agree it's not much of a park but I think 'Portobello Park' is just a convenient name for the bit of green space that doesn't actually form part of the golf course.

So are you saying that you don't want the school on, what we will call for the purposes of this discussion and only to avoid confusion, Portobello Park?

And, if so, where do you suggest that PHS and St John's are re-built? I'm genuinely interested.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 13 Dec 2008, 21:40

Bob Jefferson wrote: 'Portobello Park' is just a convenient name for the bit of green space

'Portobello Park' is just a convenient name bandied about by the Council to let people think that it's totally unconnected to the Golf Course.

Bob Jefferson wrote:And, if so, where do you suggest that PHS and St John's are re-built? I'm genuinely interested.

You're not genuinely interested, you would just like new blood to shoot down in flames

.

Do you really think (I'm genuinely interested) that when your super duper, all singing, all dancing, fabby dabby new 'school in the park' is built that the Council will then plough money into the maintenance and upkeep of the building, will provide money for adequate staffing and give each Department a decent budget on which to work? Or, do you think they'll just ignore the building for say.......40 odd years, let it fall into disrepair, slash budgets so that, for instance, in real terms the Library will have three figures to work on for a whole year, cut cleaners to the absolute minimum so that the place is a tip and pay their support staff peanuts? How long will it stay super and fabby dabby and where will they build the next one?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Dec 2008, 22:01

Good grief woman, it hasn't been built yet and you're complaining about the maintenance programme already!

I don't really believe you think I'm out to shoot you down in flames. I think you just don't have an alternative solution. That's OK, there isn't one. It was a trick question.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 14 Dec 2008, 14:25

Portobello park is included in the official list of council park sites. Itis separate from the golf course. It is classified as a city park. A recent usage survey indicated that less than 1% of people said when choosing to visit a park. Portobello would be their choice. Figgate park is classed higher although I can't recall what it is? It is listed as two separate parks east and west. Many friends of park groups are listed with contact detail etc. Portobello park apparently has no friends.. All of which makes the much loved by everyone claim more than a little silly. .

Franck · Post by **Franck** » 15 Dec 2008, 11:26

Epykat wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:I had in mind the floating voter, not the lost causes. But seriously, where do you stand on this now?
In the same place I've always been but even more incredulous at how vindictive this debate has become.

I don't want the school on the golfie (there IS NO PARK!) and I think there are going to be an awful lot of disappointed punters when they realise that the wonderful, state of the art, 21st Century, super school isn't as good as they had been led to believe it would be. Hopefully though they'll get their bunny rabbits and ponies in their 'in the park' utopia.

I really dont want to get involved in this debate, but I think your wrong.There is a definite seperation between the golf course and the football pitches.I think up until about 15 years ago there was no boundary, but good work by the green-keepers along the left hand side of the third hole of the golf course drew that dividing line....for the benefit of making the hole harder ( o.b down the left) and hopefully giving some cover to those in the line of way-ward tee-shots.

It's inaccurate to call the entire green space the golfie, it's just not correct, unless you feel it's acceptable to play football on a golf course?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Dec 2008, 19:44

As we know, PPAG supporters are becoming increasingly desperate in the face of certain defeat and some are prepared to be, let's say, economical with the truth in an attempt to bolster their support.

Today I heard that a prominent PPAGer has been trying to convince people that if the school goes ahead on Portobello Park, a road will be built through the golf course. Please disregard such stories. They have no foundation in truth whatsoever and are merely indicative of a discredited campaign in its final death throes.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 16 Dec 2008, 20:27

Any reason as to why a road would be built through the golfcourse?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 16 Dec 2008, 20:44

None whatsoever as far as I can reasonably imagine, but I assume that the perpetrator of this story is alleging that it would be for vehicular access to the new school.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 16 Dec 2008, 21:02

This might go back to the plan in the feasibility report of 2006. Remember I said it came up at the Local Plan inquiry?

They were complaining that the drawing showed the school encroaching on the eigth tee and it was pointed out that it was only an indicative drawing not an actual design. Well the bit that's shown encroaching is an access road. At the time the Council official actually pointed out that a road would be very unlikely to be put in as shown.

They might be trying, once again, to spin a two year old feasibility drawing as the 'latest plan'.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 16 Dec 2008, 21:48

Bob Jefferson wrote:None whatsoever as far as I can reasonably imagine, but I assume that the perpetrator of this story is alleging that it would be for vehicular access to the new school.

"Once she believes something to be true, no matter the amount of contrary evidence presented, the lady shall not be swayed"

Michael King on Sarah Palin