New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Discussion and debate on the issues affecting Portobello
Locked
User avatar
Porty
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Porty » 28 Jan 2012, 18:45

I think you probably are. And you must be one of the few who consider PPAG a community group . Your getting confused about who is attempting to grab the land."its like confiscating my garden" being one of the recent claims by a park avenue resident.
Do you believe PPAG has had the door closed by Portys churches too? Isnt it weird how these different community groups adopted the same position?

Reality hurts Betty.
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly

rmolehusband
Posts: 205
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 13:12
Location: Porty

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by rmolehusband » 28 Jan 2012, 22:54

Porty wrote:Reality hurts Betty
That's why she avoids it as much as possible.

Betty Windsor
Posts: 212
Joined: 25 Mar 2006, 22:43

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Betty Windsor » 30 Jan 2012, 12:52

Are PODs sponsors aware that PPAG were refused a table at the "village show"?
I've attached PEDAL's constitution and was particularly interested in no3. I cannot understand how a group with that constitution can be neutral on the subject of the destruction of green space in an underprivllaged area.
One would have expected groups like these along with groups like the Woodcraft folk to be up in arms about the loss of green space. You talk of regret at the loss, but the fact is it is not your loss. You and your children don't use it so you don't see why anyone else should want to. It's far enough away not to concern you.
Attachments
PEDAL-constitution1.pdf
(1.42 MiB) Downloaded 114 times
long may she rain.

Makaveli
Posts: 386
Joined: 20 Jun 2009, 09:01
Location: Brunstane

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Makaveli » 30 Jan 2012, 13:16

Porty park is pretty much the nearest park to our house and I have never set foot on it as there are much nicer better facilitied (is that a word?) parks in the local area.

Why do you keep saying the area is underprivaliged? It is rather insulting of the people who live there who I am sure do not consider themsleves so.

Betty Windsor
Posts: 212
Joined: 25 Mar 2006, 22:43

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Betty Windsor » 30 Jan 2012, 13:27

Porty wrote:
Reality hurts Betty.
Like the man says.
I don't wish to offend anyone but you are kidding yourselves if you think that the levels of privilage in Magdalene & Christians compare favourably to the majority of the school on the park crowd.
long may she rain.

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by seanie » 30 Jan 2012, 13:49

PEDAL, POD and now the Woodcraft Folk?

When do you get to the Sunshine Club Gillian?

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Bob Jefferson » 30 Jan 2012, 13:52

Betty, your attempts to turn this into some sort of class war are quite ridiculous. What about the PPAG supporters in Park Avenue and its environs who send their kids to private schools? The new PHS will benefit ALL of those in the community who choose to educate their children within the state system.

As for this bee you have in your bonnet about something that may or may not have happened last summer, why don't you ask someone from POD to respond to your accusation?

Betty Windsor
Posts: 212
Joined: 25 Mar 2006, 22:43

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Betty Windsor » 30 Jan 2012, 14:13

Bob Jefferson wrote: As for this bee you have in your bonnet about something that may or may not have happened last summer, why don't you ask someone from POD to respond to your accusation?
I don't need to. I know that is what happened-PPAG received a letter from POD telling them they could not get a table. Beyond that I don't know.
Is this really what we should expect from a group who clall themselves Portobello "OPEN" Door?
Is this the message you want to give to our children ?- exclude those who disagree.

As far as the class war, you don't want to accept the facts - ie-
open green space improves the health of the people who live in the area
that Magdalene and Christians are not some middle-class leafy suburb unlike most of joppa/Brighton.
that the land is "common good and that complicates matters.

Maybe if the school on the park crowd were campaigning vigourously for the promised compensatory land I'd have a bit more respect for your position.
long may she rain.

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Bob Jefferson » 30 Jan 2012, 14:23

So perhaps it might be instructive to know the content of that letter, which no doubt offered some explanation? My guess is that POD didn't want to court controversy at a community event that was going to be attended by lots of local children and their families. POD is an apolitical group concerned primarily with promoting music and the arts within the community and as such is supported by a wide range of local people with differing views on the school issue. Similarly, I wouldn't expect local shops to display PPAG posters because it would be offensive to many of their customers.

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Bob Jefferson » 30 Jan 2012, 14:26

Betty Windsor wrote:open green space improves the health of the people who live in the area
The vast majority of the park, i.e. the golf course will still exist when the school is built. And the path network around the park will still exist and in fact be upgraded, so good news for the handful of dog walkers and walkers/joggers who currently use it.

Betty Windsor
Posts: 212
Joined: 25 Mar 2006, 22:43

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Betty Windsor » 30 Jan 2012, 14:33

Bob Jefferson wrote:So perhaps it might be instructive to know the content of that letter, which no doubt offered some explanation? My guess is that POD didn't want to court controversy at a community event that was going to be attended by lots of local children and their families. POD is an apolitical group concerned primarily with promoting music and the arts within the community and as such is supported by a wide range of local people with differing views on the school issue. Similarly, I wouldn't expect local shops to display PPAG posters because it would be offensive to many of their customers.
FEEBLE
How very patronising.
So what you're saying is that people are really too stupid to make up their own minds.
Can't be having any courting of controversy, who knows where it might end? People might start asking awkward questions.
Sounds like a story from a country where democracy does not exist. Anyone who dares to question is ridiculed and/or excluded. It's an old trick.
long may she rain.

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by seanie » 30 Jan 2012, 14:37

Betty Windsor wrote:So what you're saying is that people are really too stupid to make up their own minds.
I don't think anybody would say that. Being very stupid is clearly no bar to having a strong opinion.

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Bob Jefferson » 30 Jan 2012, 14:39

Betty Windsor wrote:Maybe if the school on the park crowd were campaigning vigourously for the promised compensatory land I'd have a bit more respect for your position.
You will recall that the Council made a democratic decision about that. They recognised that what is important is not necessarily the quantity of open space but the quality. That said, falling land values now means that the existing site isn't worth nearly as much as the Council had originally forecast, so perhaps it won't necessarily go for housing. Perhaps money will be found to re-build St John's onsite with its own playing fields and what's left could become a public park? But bear in mind that the proceeds from the sale of the existing site would be ring-fenced to help build the next school on the priority list.

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Bob Jefferson » 30 Jan 2012, 14:51

Betty Windsor wrote: So what you're saying is that people are really too stupid to make up their own minds
No, what I suggested was that many local people, myself included, would find PPAGs presence at such an event offensive.

Betty Windsor
Posts: 212
Joined: 25 Mar 2006, 22:43

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Betty Windsor » 30 Jan 2012, 14:56

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Betty Windsor wrote: So what you're saying is that people are really too stupid to make up their own minds
No, what I suggested was that many local people, myself included, would find PPAGs presence at such an event offensive.
And you think that's a good reason for excluding someone?
long may she rain.

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Bob Jefferson » 30 Jan 2012, 15:19

I'm not suggesting for a moment that PPAG supporters should be excluded. I'm saying that it would be foolhardy of the organisers of a community event, that was bound to attract many local children and their parents, to give PPAG a platform or a means of raising funds. If that was the thinking behind the decision, then it seems eminently sensible to me.

Betty Windsor
Posts: 212
Joined: 25 Mar 2006, 22:43

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Betty Windsor » 30 Jan 2012, 15:42

Bob Jefferson wrote:I'm not suggesting for a moment that PPAG supporters should be excluded. I'm saying that it would be foolhardy of the organisers of a community event, that was bound to attract many local children and their parents, to give PPAG a platform or a means of raising funds. If that was the thinking behind the decision, then it seems eminently sensible to me.
Sounds like fascism to me.
long may she rain.

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Bob Jefferson » 30 Jan 2012, 15:46

I would exclude BNP as well.

User avatar
rathbone
Posts: 1989
Joined: 18 Aug 2004, 18:45
Location: somewhere else

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by rathbone » 30 Jan 2012, 15:53

Betty Windsor wrote: Sounds like fascism to me.
Ah, the old fascism accusation...... always the sign of a failing on-line argument.
I have nothing to say and I'm going to say it.

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Bob Jefferson » 30 Jan 2012, 15:55

And, come to think of it, I don't think the Village Show needs the Scottish Defence League either. Actually, there are probably quite a few groups that shouldn't get a table. I doubt that POD has a policy per se but probably just treats each request on its own merits.

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by seanie » 30 Jan 2012, 15:57

Betty Windsor wrote:Sounds like fascism to me.
So Portobello Open Doors is actually a fascist organisation?

What are you on and where can I get some?

Makaveli
Posts: 386
Joined: 20 Jun 2009, 09:01
Location: Brunstane

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Makaveli » 30 Jan 2012, 16:04

This is hilarious stuff!!!

Betty Windsor
Posts: 212
Joined: 25 Mar 2006, 22:43

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Betty Windsor » 30 Jan 2012, 16:25

seanie wrote:
Betty Windsor wrote:Sounds like fascism to me.
So Portobello Open Doors is actually a fascist organisation?

What are you on and where can I get some?
I wouldn't go as far as that. It just doesn't look very democratic from where I'm sitting.
You must be absolutely livid that, despite your best efforts over the last few years to silence the oppostion and to undermine them at every opportunity, they have still managed to raise the cash to take this to court. Some of you must be worried that your precious little darling might not get the full "school on the park experience".
You are not interested in the rights and wrongs of this land grabbing, all you care about is getting your children a shiny new school.
The fact that PPAG have the most eminent QC in this field must be especially galling for some of you.
The biggest mistake you have made to date is underestimating the opposition.
long may she rain.

seanie
Posts: 2313
Joined: 03 Feb 2006, 20:43
Location: Brighton Place

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by seanie » 30 Jan 2012, 16:43

I've never tried to silence anybody, and I don't even know how to go about trying. What I have done is put forward the arguments for the school, as consistently and coherently as possible, as well as pointing out flaws in the arguments against. When it comes to the Portobello Park Action Group that inevitably means pointing out inconsistencies, factual errors and outright fabrications.

And clearly I am interested in the rights and wrongs or I wouldn't have spent so much time on the issue. I just happen to think it's the right thing to do.

As to QCs, I have to say the Council's one is pretty impressive too.

Makaveli
Posts: 386
Joined: 20 Jun 2009, 09:01
Location: Brunstane

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Makaveli » 30 Jan 2012, 16:54

What is the "school on the park experience"?

It sounds like something they would have at Alton Towers or in NeverLand!!

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Bob Jefferson » 30 Jan 2012, 16:57

Betty Windsor wrote:Some of you must be worried that your precious little darling might not get the full "school on the park experience".
You are not interested in the rights and wrongs of this land grabbing, all you care about is getting your children a shiny new school.
We want the best possible education for our children within the state system. The new PHS will be so shiny and new that some local parents who currently send their children to schools elsewhere may well re-consider. That can only be a good thing. "Land grabbing" is not how I see it. I see an under-used and little-loved green space being used instead for a new school that is desperately needed and that will benefit thousands of local children for generations to come.

rmolehusband
Posts: 205
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 13:12
Location: Porty

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by rmolehusband » 30 Jan 2012, 18:29

rathbone wrote:
Betty Windsor wrote: Sounds like fascism to me.
Ah, the old fascism accusation...... always the sign of a failing on-line argument.
Not sure if 'fascism' is enough, I think we need an actual mention of N*z*s or H*tl*r to invoke Godwins Law and put this thread out of its misery.

rmolehusband
Posts: 205
Joined: 20 Jul 2009, 13:12
Location: Porty

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by rmolehusband » 30 Jan 2012, 18:43

Betty Windsor wrote:I've attached PEDAL's constitution and was particularly interested in no3. I cannot understand how a group with that constitution can be neutral on the subject of the destruction of green space
Clause 3.a of PPAGs constitution is "To support the preservation of public green space" yet the serving chair of that organisation is on public record proposing that a new primary school be built on Figgate Park.

One simple question for you Betty, given the above, do you also accuse PPAG of hypocrisy in the same way as you do PEDAL?

User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Bob Jefferson » 30 Jan 2012, 19:47

rmolehusband wrote:Not sure if 'fascism' is enough, I think we need an actual mention of N*z*s or H*tl*r to invoke Godwins Law and put this thread out of its misery.
Will this do?

User avatar
Porty
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Porty » 30 Jan 2012, 21:43

PPAGERS have suggested building on the significant majority of portobello's parks. Including the park where the village fair is held. We perhaps should not presume POD'S rejection was related to the school.
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly

User avatar
Porty
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Porty » 30 Jan 2012, 23:09

Betty Windsor wrote:
seanie wrote:
Betty Windsor wrote: The fact that PPAG have the most eminent QC in this field must be especially galling for some of you.
The biggest mistake you have made to date is underestimating the opposition.
Its galling the school is being delayed on a spurious legal challenge. I hope your obvious faith in the QC is misplaced and he fails to make a silk purse out of a sows ear. Cos' Thats the magnitude of the challenge he faces.
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly

User avatar
Jamesie
Posts: 433
Joined: 16 May 2003, 14:21
Location: Formerly Porty

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Jamesie » 31 Jan 2012, 00:02

seanie wrote: As to QCs, I have to say the Council's one is pretty impressive too.
Who is the Council's QC?

Betty Windsor
Posts: 212
Joined: 25 Mar 2006, 22:43

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Betty Windsor » 31 Jan 2012, 00:07

Jamesie wrote:
seanie wrote: As to QCs, I have to say the Council's one is pretty impressive too.
Who is the Council's QC?
Roy Martin
long may she rain.

User avatar
Porty
Posts: 8514
Joined: 08 Jun 2004, 14:30
Location: Organic Market

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Porty » 31 Jan 2012, 00:11

Betty Windsor wrote:
Jamesie wrote:
seanie wrote: As to QCs, I have to say the Council's one is pretty impressive too.
Who is the Council's QC?
Roy Martin
Wrong again betty. q
.....ambition makes you look pretty ugly

User avatar
Paxetamor
Posts: 49
Joined: 17 Jan 2012, 01:05

Re: New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

Post by Paxetamor » 31 Jan 2012, 00:11

Bob wrote

" I see an under-used and little-loved green space being used instead for a new school that is desperately needed and that will benefit thousands of local children for generations to come."


You seem to see what you want to see to make you feel better about the 'sacrifice' that you're making. It is under-used and little-loved by you.

How many generations will benefit? 2 or 3 maybe until it's deemed unfit for purpose and sold. The park has been there for 150 years, we will never get it back.

Locked