New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 10 Mar 2006, 13:59

Dadaist wrote: I agree entirely. It's just I have a 2 year-old who I want to have a school to go to, and now seanie says she might not have one.

Don't fret Dadaist. You could always send her to St George's or Mary Erskine's.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 14:00

Marya wrote:
Dadaist wrote: I agree entirely. It's just I have a 2 year-old who I want to have a school to go to, and now seanie says she might not have one.
Don't fret Dadaist. You could always send her to St George's or Mary Erskine's.

Harsh. Nice one.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Mar 2006, 14:01

Gemini wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:
dccairns wrote:And it is very disappointing that some parents are apparently being excluded from the meeting on 15 March.

Can you clarify which meeting they are apparently being excluded from and why you think this is 'very disappointing'?
I have been advised by a Parent of St. John's, that PFANS had a meeting
with the Local reps. Is this true?

I can't see how your comment answers my question but in answer to yours, I think you will find that any constituent can request a meeting with their local councillor (if that's what you mean by 'rep') at pretty much any time. What's your point?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Mar 2006, 14:03

bbbrown wrote:the scare mongering going on is fantastic by the way. i'm almost frightened to log in and read the latest episode.

I'm with you on this one bb. I'm particularly concerned about this meeting on the 15th that some parents are being excluded from. Do you know anything about it?

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 10 Mar 2006, 14:03

There seems to be some confusion regarding the meeting at Portobello High School on Monday 6th March. If you go back to page 26 of this thread there is a link to www.bbc.co.uk/dna/actionnetwork/G1549. The page has since been updated as the meeting has now past.
However, in the update Gary Gowans states: "The "Public Meeting" at Portobello High School was most interesting! Especially as it seems it was originally intended as a "private meeting" between the council and Portobello Golf club.... I think they planned to elucidate on the plans for the new golf course to be built in Brunstane/Newcraighall (as a replacement). Maybe they hoped that the Golf Club would be "persuaded" to their cause by this means?
In any case, news having got out about the meeting ensured that well over 200 people - residents, golfers and other "interested parties" turned up."

The public were misinformed. I am not saying that this was intentional, nor am I stating that residents are not entitled to attend public meetings, but if I saw an Indian cookery class advertised and I went along to find the class changed to Chinese cooking because that's what the majority wanted, I wouldn't be too happy.
This was originally a meeting for golfers and if "people" choose to update and change the publicity then obviously the target audience is going to change. As I have said before the Agenda changed and the golfers still don't know about the proposals which could affect them.
Anyway the meeting is history.
I don't blame Joe Public for attending this meeting. It proves there is a need for a Public Meeting for all the residents of Portobello.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 10 Mar 2006, 14:08

Bob wrote
[quote]I'm with you on this one bb. I'm particularly concerned about this meeting on the 15th that some parents are being excluded from. Do you know anything about it?

nope

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 14:09

if I saw an Indian cookery class advertised and I went along to find the class changed to Chinese cooking because that's what the majority wanted, I wouldn't be too happy.

...yeah, but if it turned out to be Ken Hom doing the class, you'd stay - wouldn't you?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Mar 2006, 14:12

I would be a little more to the point about this. The meeting was hijacked by a small group of people for their own ends. They have stirred up residents living in the vicinity of the Golf Course with scaremongering stories and now threaten to hijack other meetings to which they are not invited.

Having said that, parents who wish to attend the PHS meeting can be assured that measures will be put in place to prevent this scenario and only parents with children at PHS will be allowed entry. Apart from anything else this is a sensible security precaution.

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 10 Mar 2006, 14:12

Not if I wasn't interested in Chinese food.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 14:17

Mate of Marya wrote:Not if I wasn't interested in Chinese food.

OK - insert your favourite celebrity chef then. You'd stay, wouldn't you?

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 10 Mar 2006, 14:25

Dadaist wrote:
Mate of Marya wrote:Not if I wasn't interested in Chinese food.
OK - insert your favourite celebrity chef then. You'd stay, wouldn't you?

Would I stay for entertainment value or for practical necessity?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 14:28

Bob Jefferson wrote:I would be a little more to the point about this. The meeting was hijacked by a small group of people for their own ends. They have stirred up residents living in the vicinity of the Golf Course with scaremongering stories and now threaten to hijack other meetings to which they are not invited.

Ewan Aitken made sure everyone got one question.

How many people would you say were in this small group?

You've applied your default label of nimbyism to anyone who lives nearby and fails to support your view - does this mean that a resident who lives nearby and supports your view is ok, one that doesn't is a nimby and one that doesn't and attends a public meeting is a hijacker?

I am a resident with a child who attended the meeting based on information posted on your website. I stood at the back and didn't ask any questions. Am I :

a) a member of the public
b) a nimby
c) a hijacker

Veterans of the Superstore campaign who treat other campaigners who don't support their views on this topic in the same way as they would like to have been treated during that campaign should look in the mirror.

Bob, you've also stated that you would defend the green space of the bowling club (the one near the library) with your life. Can you be more specific please?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 14:30

Mate of Marya wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
Mate of Marya wrote:Not if I wasn't interested in Chinese food.
OK - insert your favourite celebrity chef then. You'd stay, wouldn't you?
Would I stay for entertainment value or for practical necessity?

Either, or both. If there was room in the hall, you'd bothered to come all the way out and it turned out to be something which interested you - and was free - you'd stay, wouldn't you?

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 10 Mar 2006, 14:47

Dadaist wrote:
Mate of Marya wrote:
Dadaist wrote: OK - insert your favourite celebrity chef then. You'd stay, wouldn't you?
Would I stay for entertainment value or for practical necessity?
Either, or both. If there was room in the hall, you'd bothered to come all the way out and it turned out to be something which interested you - and was free - you'd stay, wouldn't you?

I would stay because I would have made arrangements to go out that evening, babysitter etc but after the event I still wouldn't know anymore about Indian cookery!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 14:54

Mate of Marya wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
Mate of Marya wrote: Would I stay for entertainment value or for practical necessity?
Either, or both. If there was room in the hall, you'd bothered to come all the way out and it turned out to be something which interested you - and was free - you'd stay, wouldn't you?
I would stay because I would have made arrangements to go out that evening, babysitter etc but after the event I still wouldn't know anymore about Indian cookery!

Ah yes, but your knowledge of cooking would have been enriched, and furthermore the celebrity chef might also learn something about local taste!

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 10 Mar 2006, 15:14

Dadaist wrote:Ah yes, but your knowledge of cooking would have been enriched, and furthermore the celebrity chef might also learn something about local taste!

I am all for enrichment of the mind and sharing knowledge.
We just need a local school now, fit for this purpose!

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 10 Mar 2006, 15:14

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Gemini wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:
I have been advised by a Parent of St. John's, that PFANS had a meeting
with the Local reps. Is this true?

I can't see how your comment answers my question but in answer to yours, I think you will find that any constituent can request a meeting with their local councillor (if that's what you mean by 'rep') at pretty much any time. What's your point?

Your tone is a tad patronising MOI, dont think I care for it.

How fortunate for PFANS and other constituent's who can call on their reps at any time, our rep. is obviously too occupied to visit an 81 year old housebound resident, who requested a meeting - more than a year ago

Get the point now

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 15:38

You're wrong bbbrown - they have not been smeared as scaremongering hijackers.

They have been smeared as scaremongering nimby hijackers.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 10 Mar 2006, 16:00

never fear, security will sort them out...

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 10 Mar 2006, 16:01

Shergar, Lord Lucan and now Mr. Mcintyre, what is the world coming to?

__________________________________________________
â€œFor everything you have missed, you have gained something else, and for everything you gain, you lose something elseâ€

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 16:03

[quote="Rex_Mundi"]Shergar, Lord Lucan and now Mr. Mcintyre, what is the world coming to?

__________________________________________________
â€œFor everything you have missed, you have gained something else, and for everything you gain, you lose something elseâ€

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 10 Mar 2006, 16:04

There is a distinction to be made between:

A) A meeting organised and run by representatives of a school for parents who have children attending that school.

and

B) A meeting held in a school, where the school is merely a venue.

If I receive an invitation which is specifically for parents of children attending the school, then I expect only parents of children to be in attendance. Now if they happen to also be golfers, residents of Park Avenue, astronauts or whatever, then that's fine. There should not however be any non invited present.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 10 Mar 2006, 16:07

Rex_Mundi wrote:Shergar, Lord Lucan and now Mr. Mcintyre, what is the world coming to?

They seek him here, they seek him there, the elusive..... Mr Mac

Ah! Found him..... Dublin for the International

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Mar 2006, 17:45

Gemini wrote:How fortunate for PFANS and other constituent's who can call on their reps at any time, our rep. is obviously too occupied to visit an 81 year old housebound resident, who requested a meeting - more than a year ago

Get the point now

No, I fail to see any relevance at all in your post. Perhaps you should complain to the 'rep' concerned. What does any of this have to do with the meeting on the 15th to which only certain parents have been invited?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Mar 2006, 17:57

Dadaist, referring to your earlier post. (I'm fed up of all these quotes within quotes, though a big fan of holdecks within holodecks)

I had assumed that your presence at the meeting in question was similar to mine. I was there to observe more than anything else and I found it to be a learning experience.

I think a handful of individuals had the idea of hijacking the meeting and then stirred up local residents and persuaded them to come along.

I was against the Superstore. Weren't we all? My view of those who opposed it was simply that they were wrong.

You will recall that I quickly retracted the 'with my life' bit about the bowling green. I want it to remain a green space but I recognise that there may come a day when it has to be sacrificed for the greater good of the community, such as a new school for our kids.

ali · Post by **ali** » 10 Mar 2006, 18:55

Bob Jefferson wrote:I was against the Superstore. Weren't we all?

Nope. That was just a myth that has emerged since your "victory". Try not to rewrite history, Bob.

Mrs Mangle · Post by **Mrs Mangle** » 10 Mar 2006, 20:01

Has this turned into " say anything thread " or attack/slag off anybody thread ?

See what i mean about it being confusing.

As a newbie

i spy very much tooing ,froing, bad feeling.

Not everyone will end up smiling, will they ?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Mar 2006, 20:12

Mrs M, the mods are trying very hard to facilitate discussion and a frank and open exchange of views within the parameters of the posting guidelines but clearly it's a highly emotive subject and it isn't easy.

We will continue to take action wherever we think necessary and of course that does include the moderation of each other's posts. As ever, if anyone feels that they have grounds for complaint they should contact one or more of the moderators. All complaints are treated very seriously.

angusi · Post by **angusi** » 10 Mar 2006, 20:14

Bob Jefferson wrote:Mrs M, the mods are trying very hard to facilitate discussion and a frank and open exchange of views within the parameters of the posting guidelines but clearly it's a highly emotive subject and it isn't easy.

We will continue to take action wherever we think necessary and of course that does include the moderation of each other's posts. As ever, if anyone feels that they have grounds for complaint they should contact one or more of the moderators. All complaints are treated very seriously.

Mrs M wrote:Has this turned into " say anything thread " or attack/slag off anybody thread ?

See what i mean about it being confusing.

As a newbie i spy very much tooing ,froing, bad feeling.

Not everyone will end up smiling, will they ?

I do have to agree with both of you here. It's quite an intersting discussion, isn't it!

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 10 Mar 2006, 20:32

Mrs Mangle wrote:Has this turned into " say anything thread " or attack/slag off anybody thread ?

See what i mean about it being confusing.

As a newbie i spy very much tooing ,froing, bad feeling.

Not everyone will end up smiling, will they ?

Putting on my Moderator's hat Mrs M., I think the fact that this thread has already attracted a record number of postings and views tells us that this is very much the hot topic of the moment . Trying to distinguish between vigorous verbal sparring and 'personal attack' can get very difficult at times, but any poster can complain to the moderating team if they feel that they have been a victim of such an attack. In fact, I have already deleted posts in this thread in response to such a complaint. However, it can sometimes be a tough call to make.

Speaking at a more personal level, I find myself on the opposite side in this debate with more than one very good friend, but I would hate to think that we would let the matter damage the friendship. I hope that as a community that, whatever the outcome to the debate, we will be able to return to living and working together amicably.

Green Dream · Post by **Green Dream** » 10 Mar 2006, 21:22

Many of the people who spoke at the meeting in the High School on Monday night were in favour of retaining the park and golf course for the whole community. Aspects such as amenity value (golf course facility close to the town centre and Portobello people) sports fields for young people to use (including Portobello Thistle) and open space for everyone to use for walking and exercising their dogs was mentioned. People spoke who do not live facing the park, some came from streets away but still feel destroying it would be detrimental to the community. They are not nimby's but concerned citizens. Destroying all the green space in our city in this piecemeal fashion should not be allowed to happen, especially when there are so many planning policies in place encouraging protection of greenfield sites. There are brownfield sites that could be built on, yes it might be cheaper than building on a park but the Council is not meant to be a profit-making organisation, it is there for the benefit of the whole community. The School should be rebuilt but without destroying our environment and facilities.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 21:37

Welcome to the forum Green Dream - fantastic avatar!

You'll find that people who support the plan for the school will argue that the council are completely above board and that if you dare suggest that the fact that there were only unminuted strategic meetings is in any way untoward, you must be some sort of conspiracy theorist!

On the other hand - it would be wrong to jump to conclusions as it could well be the case that the only "meetings" held were in fact stray conversations in the corridors of power - so an accusation of a lack of transparency wouldn't hold up - you have to prove these things - it might be a bit of a bureaucratic euphemism as opposed to smokescreen.

How easy was the whole FOI process? Do you think you'll do it again?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 10 Mar 2006, 21:47

Dadaist wrote: You'll find that people who support the plan for the school will argue that the council are completely above board and that if you dare suggest that the fact that there were only unminuted strategic meetings is in any way untoward, you must be some sort of conspiracy theorist!

Not me, mate. I would never dream of saying the council are completely above board!!!

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 10 Mar 2006, 21:50

Hello Green Dream,
I would just like to add that any private meeting you are invited to might suddenly change into a public meeting with a completely different Agenda; a ploy to ridicule our local councillors!

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 10 Mar 2006, 21:52

It is not our councillors we need to worry about being above board.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Where oh Where

Re: Where oh Where

Re: Where oh Where

Community Spirit