New Portobello High School - on going issues

Discussion and debate on the issues affecting Portobello
Locked
User avatar
Bob Jefferson
Posts: 6212
Joined: 11 Dec 2004, 21:16
Location: Planet Porty
Contact:

Post by Bob Jefferson » 26 Feb 2008, 23:15

tom nimmo wrote:I probably won't join the discussion Bob as all it is doing is creating two opposing camps and lots of bad feeling.
That's a pity Tom, because I saw you as a voice of reason that could bridge both camps.
tom nimmo wrote:I don't think the school DVD helped really as it seemed to me to highlight disorganisation within the school. Surely someone can plan classes so that pupils are not going from the first to the seventh floor without stopping at the floors in between.
I'm sure that finer minds than yours or mine, with degrees in logistics, have vexed over this problem but with 1450 kids to contend with, I guess that there must still be times when such a trip is necessary.

tom nimmo wrote:If Stephen Reid thinks it is a good idea to have pupils bussed to Jack Kane for a single period of gym that can only last fifteen or twenty minutes then what is he complaining about?
I doubt that Mr Reid has much say in it. Despite the fact that we have one of the worst records in Europe for child health, the amount of time dedicated to physical activity in our schools is pitiful.
tom nimmo wrote:I agree that the school is a decrepit old building and well past it's best
Hoorah! Some people still think it just needs a bit of 'refurbishment'.
tom nimmo wrote:but I don't want Portobello park to be a venue for it's replacement.
Can you suggest a viable alternative? And if none exists, would you reluctantly accept Portobello Park as the only possible site?
tom nimmo wrote:The promise I make to you Bob is that if a vote is asked for and I am still representing our residents association, I will ask the residents association members for their opinions and I will cast my vote with the majority - whichever way that goes. Can I count on your help to deliver the question sheets when the time comes?
Absolutely, as long as I am allowed an opportunity to explain the facts to them first.

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

Post by Porty » 26 Feb 2008, 23:24

tom nimmo wrote: I am well aware that some people want the community council members to cast a vote either for or against the school in the park and that others are set against this. The promise I make to you Bob is that if a vote is asked for and I am still representing our residents association, I will ask the residents association members for their opinions and I will cast my vote with the majority - whichever way that goes.
Tom, the time to "vote" as to where the school will be located has passed. Thats not what it about now, its been decided, the council will is to put the school on the park, consecutive councils have agreed. The Community Council had its chance, maybe you could dig up what they said and avail us all?

Its not the debate here on TP that splits the camps, it is the desire of those, and that appears to include you, that want to operate outside the democratic process. We are no longer debating "where". You missed the boat.

We are now debating the delaying tactics of PPAG, Cairns et al and the reality of what they claim? That's one of the reasons the thread is called "ongoing issues".

Personally, I don't give two hoots what Diana Cairns has to say about the process or the building. At this moment in time I'm interested in who she believes should be compensated and why? Do you know?

User avatar
Maria
Posts: 4795
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 19:41
Location: Portobello
Contact:

Post by Maria » 26 Feb 2008, 23:49

tom nimmo wrote: I probably won't join the discussion Bob as all it is doing is creating two opposing camps and lots of bad feeling. I don't think the school DVD helped really as it seemed to me to highlight disorganisation within the school. Surely someone can plan classes so that pupils are not going from the first to the seventh floor without stopping at the floors in between.


I believe discussion is a good thing Tom as it helps prevent ignorance and allows people the opportunity to change their minds. I can never understand people who say that they admire Margaret Thatcher for not listening to others.

I also feel someone should defend PHS against your accusation of it being 'disorganised'. School timetabling is a black art Tom and significantly it is usually a teacher with a Maths degree that is given the task.

To give you an idea of some timetabling restraints, I would doubt very much, for example, if PHS can timetable all of a junior year group to be in the same subject at the same time - staffing levels usually prevent this. For instance, it is very common in Secondary schools to timetable English against Maths, meaning that half of a year group will be at Maths, while the other half are at English. Additionally, pressures on accommodation can mean that classes attending the same subject are taught in various parts of the building, outwith the subject dept.

Another factor is that S3 classes and above will be divided up into their subject choices outwith their 'core' time, so you will have some pupils at Science, while others may be in the Social Sciences or Music etc. I could add many more factors, but please just accept that you cannot timetable around the location of subject areas; you cannot avoid having pupils scattered throughout the building and moving constantly up and down stairs.
The main thrust of the argument seemed to be that pupils were not getting enough exercise yet one poor girl complained that climbing all those stairs was really tiring.



I was saddened to hear folk mock the young girl on the DVD who said the stairs were tiring. Parents of secondary pupils will know just how heavy those rucksacks they carry around school are, but perhaps others don't. Pupils have to lug all their jotters, textbooks, pencils, pens and outdoor clothing (why do you think so many young people refuse to wear jackets even in the rain?!) from one class to another. If they have a bottle of water, or a PE kit, or a packed lunch and/or a snack, then that also has to be carried around the building with them. Add in confined spaces full of jostling pupils and an eight storey building and I would defy most adults not to feel tired in such a situation.

tom nimmo
Posts: 146
Joined: 13 Jan 2004, 15:13
Location: Duddingston
Contact:

Post by tom nimmo » 27 Feb 2008, 16:35

I attended the school many, many years ago myself and I don't think all the excercise I got by running up and down the stairs did me any harm. This thread may have been a debate a year or so ago but all I see is the same handfull of people saying the same things over and over again. Thanks for suggesting that I could be "the voice of reason" Bob. I can't decide if you are being sarcastic or kind, however I really don't want to add any more to this thread. Cheers.
Prom cycling for all.

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

Post by Porty » 27 Feb 2008, 17:10

tom nimmo wrote:I attended the school many, many years ago myself and I don't think all the excercise I got by running up and down the stairs did me any harm..
What do you put it down to then? :wink:

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

Post by Bob Jefferson » 27 Feb 2008, 22:41

tom nimmo wrote:Thanks for suggesting that I could be "the voice of reason" Bob. I can't decide if you are being sarcastic or kind
I'm sure you will give me the benefit of the doubt.
tom nimmo wrote:however I really don't want to add any more to this thread.
That's your perogative of course, but you can hardly complain that it's
the same handfull of people saying the same things over and over again
and then not take the opportunity to put across your own viewpoint or debate the issues that have been raised.

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

Post by Porty » 28 Feb 2008, 16:31

You are quite the bootboy aren't you Tom?

Never repetitive tho:

tom nimmo wrote:"

“Bulldozers on the golf course! Outrageous. 2011 says Bob. Another 4 years of this thread would be disaster for Scotland, disaster for Edinburgh, disaster for Portobello and, if it hasn't happened already, disaster for Bob's sanity.”

And

“This thread has had 3247 replies since it started, 3248 if you include this one. Is there any way to tell how many individuals have actually contributed and what the for and against split regarding building the school in the park is? I suspect that only around 20 to 30 individuals have posted opinions on this thread but it would not surprise me to discover that it was fewer than this. I also suspect that the split would lean towards those in favour of saving the park”

And

“It just goes to show how long ago it was that I last looked as I didn't notice, and don't really care”

and

“I probably won't join the discussion Bob as all it is doing is creating two opposing camps and lots of bad feeling”

and

“Just thought I would sneak a glance at Bob Jefferson's diary, oops, sorry, I mean talk porty.”

And

“This is for you Michael Traill. I rarely look at Porty On-line any more and when I do”

And

“In response to my question about how many individuals had contributed to this thread I had a feeling that the only way to find out would be to trawl through from the beginning. I am curious, but not that curious, so I don't think I'll bother. From the figures posted above it is, not surprisingly, inconclusive about who wants what and, in my opinion, hardly representative anyway.”

And

“Thanks for suggesting that I could be "the voice of reason" Bob. I can't decide if you are being sarcastic or kind, however I really don't want to add any more to this thread.”

And

“I didn't actually name any names or single out anyone in particular. I am still amazed at the amount of time indivduals devote to contributing to this forum”

And

“A website Forum is just a grown up name for a chat room. This forum is no different to any other chat rooms I have looked at as it is dominated by a handful of people who post comments and opinions like there is no tomorrow.”

And from almost two years ago

“Where on earth do these people (POL posters) get the time to send in all this stuff? Do they not have jobs, social lives, families or pals? Anyway, after witnessing Bob's rather defensive and uncomfortable response to questions raised at last week's PCC meeting I think it is an excellent idea for POL to sever all ties with the PCC and stand alone. It would mean that as a PCC member I would, at last, be able to say the chat room is nothing to do with me.”
Cheers.
And before you start- it took me 2 minutes. And if I looked at the other 85% of your posts, I'd no doubt find more of the same. You don't half have it in for Bob.

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

Post by Porty » 28 Feb 2008, 17:57

Meanwhile, I have, after many minutes effort, managed to secure a copy of the emails that are to be released under Diana Cairns FOI request. I have passed these to Bob who will publish them in full when he gets the chance.

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

Post by Bob Jefferson » 28 Feb 2008, 18:09

Over the years that I have been running and/or contributing to the forum, I have been insulted, abused, libelled, ignored, shunned and threatened on more than one occasion with legal action. As recently as Monday I was verbally abused by someone who didn't like something I had posted.

By comparison, Tom's playful jibes cause me no concern whatsoever and I have no quarrel with him.

User avatar
wangi
[admin]
Posts: 3442
Joined: 27 May 2004, 10:37
Contact:

Post by wangi » 28 Feb 2008, 18:12

Can everyone please remember this thread is about the High School and related issues; not for comments about the thread itself, posters, their motivation or whatever else -- this goes for a number of posts above.

Future posts will be edited to remove off-topic parts.

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

Post by Bob Jefferson » 28 Feb 2008, 20:04

OK, here's what PPAG, and now Porty, obtained through FOI. Apologies for the quality of the text. I don't know why the Council couldn't just forward the original emails rather than print them and then badly scan them but I'm sure they have their reasons. They should be in chronological order.

Image

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

Post by Bob Jefferson » 28 Feb 2008, 20:07

Image

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

Post by Bob Jefferson » 28 Feb 2008, 20:08

Image

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

Post by Bob Jefferson » 28 Feb 2008, 20:08

Image

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

Post by Bob Jefferson » 28 Feb 2008, 20:09

And finally.....

Image

tom nimmo
Posts: 146
Joined: 13 Jan 2004, 15:13
Location: Duddingston
Contact:

Post by tom nimmo » 28 Feb 2008, 21:14

I've had second thoughts about not following this thread and posting my comments. I am mindful of the request above to stick to the thread and not to make comments about other posters however, I must say that I am impressed by Porty's ability to dredge up all the evidence against me from previous posts. I salute your attention to detail sir and I envy your computer skills.

I've read through the council stuff above regarding 'common good' and I have to say it got me thinking about what my definition of 'common good' would be. In my opinion, it is in the 'common good', or common interest, to strive for excellence in the provision of education and leisure facilities for the people of Portobello. I've no idea what the definition of 'common good' would have been when Portobello park was created but I don't doubt that education and leisure facilities would have had a fairly high value. I'm also trying to imagine what Portobello would look like in ten years time if the school is relocated to the park and its original site contains housing. I'm also imagining that the Scottish Power site is completed and there are around 800 new homes there too. I suspect that Portobello will have changed beyong all recognition if all this actually happens but I also optimistically suspect that it would be a fantastically vibrant and diverse place to live. I am now going to try and imagine that it is possible to please all of the people all of the time. Wish me luck.
Prom cycling for all.

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

Post by seanie » 28 Feb 2008, 22:22

The correspondence on Common Good looks pretty innocuous.

Am I missing something?

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

Post by Bob Jefferson » 28 Feb 2008, 22:37

Nope, that's it in its entirety and, as I predicted, there is nothing interesting, nothing contentious and nothing we didn't already know. Sorry to disappoint everyone, especially the conspiracy theorists among you. This is about as exciting as council business gets.

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

Post by Bob Jefferson » 28 Feb 2008, 23:01

Tom, I agree with just about everything in your last post, including your tribute to Porty, although I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or kind. :wink:

Furthermore, I'm genuinely excited about the prospect of a new school on Portobello Park and the opportunities that affords not only to pupils and parents but to the wider community as well. We all have a stake in this and we all need to get involved in the design process in a real and meaningful way.

And like you, we all need to step outside the box and look at the bigger picture over 10 or 20 years. There are no absolute rights and wrongs here, it's a question of balancing opinion, rights, principles and priorities with a liberal dash of reality check. But let's not forget that we are talking about creating a learning environment for the people who will eventually replace us.

User avatar
Maria
Posts: 4795
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 19:41
Location: Portobello
Contact:

Post by Maria » 29 Feb 2008, 10:09

tom nimmo wrote: I'm also trying to imagine what Portobello would look like in ten years time if the school is relocated to the park and its original site contains housing. I'm also imagining that the Scottish Power site is completed and there are around 800 new homes there too
I'd prefer to see a new St John's on the present PHS site, but I accept I'm most likely in the minority on that.

Sounds daunting doesn't it, to have all those new houses? However, 'affordable' housing seems to come out at the top of most folk's wish list for new developments. Certainly would mean we need have no fear of falling rolls in local schools.

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

Post by Porty » 29 Feb 2008, 12:27

tom nimmo wrote:. I've no idea what the definition of 'common good' would have been when Portobello park was created but I don't doubt that education and leisure facilities would have had a fairly high value. .
Agree there Tom, whereas in those days; social work, which now eats up 27% of the budget (and is of no direct benefit to me at the moment) would probably have been of little priority. Things change, they always have.

Today leisure facilities undoubtedly qualify as being in the common good, as do Police, Fire, Social Work and so on. Education is a much higher priority than those for the current Edinburgh Council. I guess it is for all councils and has been for as long as any of us have lived. In the current budget Edinburgh will spend almost 9 times what it does on all things cultural and leisure, on education. Almost 40% of the entire budget is spent on education. (Not got figures on the Capital Budget) Education is the numero uno, unassailable, top priority.

Whether one has; children, no children of school age or no children, the education of our citizens is for the common good. It is ludicrous to argue that it isn't. For some citizens to actively seek financial compensation for their Council spending money on the education of thousands of others, is sick beyond belief. And I'm sad to say that is exactly how our self-bestowed leader,Diana Cairns, chooses to represent "the people of Portobello", in the Evening News (feb 18th). (apparently we have to be financially compensated for the decision to commit £40m investment to our community") There is absolutely no mandate for Diana to make any representation whatsoever.

I hope that the rest of the city can take a step back and look objectively at what may happen here in Portobello? In in my opinion: We would love you to agree to invest in us.. For my part I promise to make the most of everything you invest. . I believe ,the people of Porty, will appreciate and strive to maximise you support.

Not every penny a council spends will be equally good for all, that's one aspect of what being a community is about. I don't want a penny compensation for a city that chooses to invest in children. If those who do ,succeed? I hope it f****** chokes them.

(Edited)
Last edited by Porty on 03 Mar 2008, 15:36, edited 1 time in total.

tom nimmo
Posts: 146
Joined: 13 Jan 2004, 15:13
Location: Duddingston
Contact:

Post by tom nimmo » 02 Mar 2008, 22:14

Strong stuff once again from Porty. I have not read anything about the actual claim that compensation will be sought if/when the park goes so I am not in a position to know if you are over-reacting or taking things deliberately out of context because you have a personal thing going on here Porty. When this first appeared I originally thought that the 'compensation' offered was a new golf course near Brunstane and I always assumed that the money raised from the sale of the High School site would pay for this. I now understand that the golf course is not under threat so a new one is no longer needed. If your interpretation of what is being asked for is true then yes, I agree that to ask for compensation to be paid to.... (who exactly would this be paid to?).... Portobello to compensate for the loss of some football pitches and the addition of a new school is a ridiculous notion. To the people who are trying to save the park it is the park itself that is vital to them so there surely cannot be any amount that would compensate for its loss. I'm not a golfer but I expect that a golf course can go pretty much anywhere nearby if there is the space but I doubt that Portobello park could go anywhere other than, well, Portobello park. I think you are being a bit harsh on Diana as all she is doing is fighting her corner, just as you are fighting yours. Some of the rhetoric being used in this thread is a bit on the dramatic side and it seems that all participants are putting themselves forward as 'the voice of Portobello' (except me of course) so it's a bit unfair that you have singled out Diana. Bob has been banging on about "our children" and recently you were talking about "our lifeblood". I was waiting for you to start referring to the park as 'living space in the east' and I would have been convinced that you had been reading Mein Kampf again.
Prom cycling for all.

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

Post by Bob Jefferson » 02 Mar 2008, 22:42

Tom, can I just point out that we are not losing the football pitches. They may be re-configured but that's all.

User avatar
Maria
Posts: 4795
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 19:41
Location: Portobello
Contact:

Post by Maria » 03 Mar 2008, 10:13

tom nimmo wrote: I have not read anything about the actual claim that compensation will be sought if/when the park goes so I am not in a position to know if you are over-reacting or taking things deliberately out of context
Tom, I believe the claim for compensation, which has got Porty's dander up, was made in a letter (it's the 4th one down) to the Evening News, sent in a personal capacity by Diana.

The letter states: "The land belongs to the people of Portobello, who would have to be financially compensated via the common good fund for its loss. "

tom nimmo
Posts: 146
Joined: 13 Jan 2004, 15:13
Location: Duddingston
Contact:

Post by tom nimmo » 03 Mar 2008, 11:09

Thank you Marya for pointing me to the letter re compensation. I would hope that it was intended as a throwaway remark rather than a serious claim for financial compensation if/when the school gets built on the park. I would love to know who or what is/are "the people of Portobello". Can compensation legally be paid out? Who/what would it be paid to? How much would it be? What could it be spent on?

So, let me get this right, the school is built on the park and compensation is then paid equally to all the people who have a Portobello address. Would this mean that it is then officialy recognised that the world (or at least Portobello) has indeed gone mad?
Prom cycling for all.

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

Post by Porty » 03 Mar 2008, 13:00

Yeah I agree Tom, it is strong stuff, i don't apologise as I abhor when people put themselves forward as speaking on behalf of the "people of Portobello". Those who choose to do this, and there are very few. are singling themselves out. Diana is by far the worst perpetrator, there must be 10 or more examples documented here on TP, she reads the posts here, knows it upsets people and that its wrong but she carries on regardless. Stephen Hawkins used to do it now and again, ironically now that he has actually been elected he has refrained, presumably he is wary of the consequences?

Believe it or not, its not personal from me, I would feel the same about anyone using that filthy tactic. Conversely, when someone puts themselves forward as speaking on my behalf, I take that personally and I'm almost certain you would feel the same.

"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

I find it very hard to accept that any intelligent, experienced activist produces a "throwaway remark" when sitting down to write a campaign letter that is going to be read by thousands of people. Especially when attaching ones name to it.

You suggest I may be misinterpreting Diana's financial compensation statement. I don't believe so. Out of interest what is your interpretation?

You've said that you think any claim for financial compensation would be a ridiculous notion. When you ran the fundraisong quiz for PPAG, were you aware that in the event of the battle being lost and the school being built on the park, the money you helped raise could go towards a fight for personal financial compensation, for all or some of the "people of Portobello"?

I have to disagree with you when you say that everyone here puts themselves forward as being the "voice of Portobello". The vast majority of us are careful to ensure that we do not broadcast in such a fashion.

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

Post by seanie » 03 Mar 2008, 16:08

There's a confusing article on the front of the latest Portobello Reporter regarding the park and Common Good status.

Just for clarity I'll recap what I previously posted on the New Portobello High School- Where and how? thread reagrding Common Good assets.
Firstly the records regarding Common Good assets are incomplete. That’s not to say assets are missing or unaccounted for but rather some are counted as general assets rather than Common Good. This is partly due to inadequacies in the historical records. Current Local Authorities inherited ownership from their predecessors. Errors and omissions were inherited too. This is compounded by the case law determining what is and isn’t Common Good.

The legal ruling in question is Ruthin Castle in 1944. The judgment established that any asset not acquired for a statutory purpose was by default Common Good and, in the absence of any contradictory decision, this remains the legal position. However this isn’t reflected in the varying custom and practice of recording Common Good assets both before and after the ruling. As such the historical record passed down is a poor guide to what actually is Common Good.
I also quoted Andrew Ferguson, author of Common Good Law.
“…a very wide range of statutory powers existed for acquisition of property, particularly from the late nineteenth century onwards. Proving what purpose land was acquired for, of course, will not always be straightforward over a hundred years on. The best case scenario is that the burgh in acquiring the property specifically narrated the relevant legislation, following the practice commented on with approval by Hutton in his commentary on the 1947 Act.

In the absence of such an express declaration in the title, the modern-day conveyancer is left with the unenviable task of unearthing some type of evidence from ancient minutes or correspondence around the time of the purchase….

…More extreme difficulties of proof will arise, of course, in relation to the types of statutory purpose which could also be said to be common good purposes, such as the provision of public recreation spaces, and there the burden of proof might be said to shift towards showing that the property had not simply fallen into that public use rather than having been specifically acquired under statutory powers for that purpose.”

Andrew C Ferguson , Common Good Law, Avizandum Publishing Ltd, 2006, p 82-83
Now that last quote acknowledges that sometimes there's a grey area, but the basic legal position, as far as I can understand it, is that Common Good status applies to assets NOT acquired for a statutory purpose.

But the latest Portobello Reporter states that the land was purchased to fulfill an obligation under the 1896 Edinburgh Extension Act; clearly a statutory obligation.

Presumably there could be additional complicating factors surrounding the original purchase but on face value, if the Park was purchased to meet the requirment of a specific act, then the Park shouldn't be classed as Common Good. I'd certainly be interested to know the reasoning behind the Councils change of opinion as to its status.

tom nimmo
Posts: 146
Joined: 13 Jan 2004, 15:13
Location: Duddingston
Contact:

Post by tom nimmo » 03 Mar 2008, 18:04

Porty, if I remember correctly I gave my time, via a pop quiz and disco, to the fight to save Portobello park and the golf course because both were under threat at the time. In the unlikely event of me getting a share of any compensation I will immediately donate it to the high school - wherever it is. As you have seen above I am prepared to look at the bigger picture and I am one of those unusual people who can see the other point of view and adapt my thinking and opinions as circumstances change. I now agree that the school should not be refurbished as the decant of pupils would be far too disruptive to their education. Where on earth would they be decanted to anyway? If it is true that the only thing holding up the school being built in the park is the debate about common good then some people have a very skewed definition of what is in the common good. If the park is truly the only realistic place that a new school can be built then there is an inevitability to it that should not be treated in King Canute fashion.
Prom cycling for all.

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

Post by seanie » 03 Mar 2008, 18:15

The Common Good issue isn't likely to be all that significant either way.

Planning issues are probably a bigger obstacle and funding has yet to be resolved.

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

Post by Bob Jefferson » 03 Mar 2008, 18:45

Tom, I'm pretty sure the golf course had already been saved by that point but let's not split hairs.

In all seriousness, I think you deserve a huge amount of credit for announcing that you have changed your position on this very important issue. I'm sure that you are not alone but you are certainly the first to do so publicly. What makes it particularly difficult is that Portobello is a small community and this is an issue that cuts across friendships and divides neighbours, as I know to my cost.

Clearly, there still remains a hard core of residents who oppose the new school. It's difficult to understand but I can only imagine that their position has now become so entrenched that they must feel there is no way back for them and they are obliged to continue their campaign beyond logic, reason and commonsense.

I value green space as much as anyone else and I'm delighted, for example, that a Friends of Figgate Park group has been established. This has always been about finding a fair solution for all members of the community. For me, giving up part of Portobello Park is a small sacrifice in order to give local children the school they deserve.

Not everyone will be happy with the outcome, but PPAG can still justifiably claim that they stopped the Council's original scheme to develop the Golf Course. Credit where credit's due.

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

Post by Porty » 03 Mar 2008, 19:22

Tom, I don't doubt for one minute that your contribution to the PPAG cause was well intended and I respect you for sticking up for your belief. Similarly, I respect and appreciate that you have altered your opinion on the location of the school.

As Seanie says the Common Good factor is not going to make much difference either way. The Portobello Reporter states that the council will have to "pay market value" into the CGF should it build the school on the park. I wonder what the source was for that woefully inaccurate piece of information? I know Dave Connelly used to make that claim £Millions I think it was, although he never gave us any precedents. Dave is a voice of PPAG so maybe it came from them? There's certainly not any precedent that I'm aware of.

It reminds me of the Reporter article in one of the recent editions "New Schools-The Debate Continues" - I have extracted the paragraph on PPAG and Common Good.

"It has now emerged, however that Portobello Park Action Group (PPAG) has received legal opinion from a leading planning QC, who told them he believes the land forms part of the common good, and that local residents would have a good chance of success if they were to take the Council to court to prevent them build-ing on it. Common good land forms part of the Council’s assets, which it holds for the benefit of the wider community"

I'm afraid that's not what the QC told PPAG. In fact he said there was no more than a reasonable chance of success in proving the land was common good but that did not mean that the council could not build on it. He opined that if the land were to be proved common good it did not render the land"inalienable" . Which means the council could sell it and it could be built on. (subject to planning)

The Portobello Reporter appears to be loaded in favour of PPAG, taking what they say as read rather than checking out the facts. Has PFANS ever had a mention in the PR? How did the Portobello Reporter react to the news that funding was not to be forthcoming, was it headlines on the front page? I can't recall but i'm fairly sure it wasn't?

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

Post by Bob Jefferson » 03 Mar 2008, 20:36

The Portobello Reporter prides itself on its reputation for political independence and balanced reporting. The article on Common Good is uncredited so we don't know who wrote it.

Knowing what a contentious issue it is, I wouldn't even attempt to explain the current position in 200 words. As we know, it's complex and open to interpretation and there are still unanswered questions about the status of the land, why the Council changed its own opinion on the matter, whether it is indeed 'common good' and, if so, what difference it makes.

If there is perceived to be bias towards PPAG then I guess it's up to PFANS to ensure that the balance is restored in the next issue.

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

Post by Bob Jefferson » 03 Mar 2008, 21:21

I have been asked to post the following on behalf of PFANS:
To the Editorial Team of the Portobello Reporter

I am writing to request, on behalf of Portobello for New Schools, a front page article of the same length as your front page piece on common good land (authorship unacknowledged unlike every other front page piece in this edition). This would provide a response to the assertions made in your article.

Your piece provides a laudable interpretation of what common good apparently means. However, it fails to balance these assertions with recent facts, for example recent case law where courts have found that a new school is a perfectly acceptable use of so-called common good land. I am also very disappointed that the article asserts as fact that common good land cannot be used for education. This is simply untrue.

Portobello Reporter is a good community newspaper because it is a forum for reflecting the range of views and activities of the whole community, not just the few. If the editorial team wishes to demonstrate that the newspaper is impartial, then it should ensure that all its articles are balanced or that they are clearly marked as the opinion of an individual or named group.

I would be grateful for an early reply to this request.

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

Post by Porty » 03 Mar 2008, 21:25

Bob Jefferson wrote: The Portobello Reporter prides itself on its reputation for political independence and balanced reporting. The article on Common Good is uncredited so we don't know who wrote it.
True but the other article I quoted had the Editor B.M as the author .
Bob Jefferson wrote:If there is perceived to be bias towards PPAG then I guess it's up to PFANS to ensure that the balance is restored in the next issue.
I know that Brenda depends largely on donated articles and that it has to be that way or the Reporter would likely not exist. Is it down to the pro-school lobby's failure to contribute?

I'm surprised and also curious to know why the potential for a new High School has not been heralded in the Reporter? I can't recall anything positive being reported about the prospect for what is the largest and most important entity in our Community. As you know there is some fantastic work going on in the community on the visioning for the new school. A Month or so ago the Pupils, some Parents and the Parent Council released a DVD on the subject. It was well documented both here and in the Evening News. It is also on You Tube. I've not read current issue in its entirety ( left it at work) does the DVD get a mention?
Last edited by Porty on 03 Mar 2008, 21:46, edited 1 time in total.

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

Post by Porty » 03 Mar 2008, 21:43

tom nimmo wrote:Porty..... In the unlikely event of me getting a share of any compensation I will immediately donate it to the high school - wherever it is. .
I will follow suit, given that compensation would come out of the city budget via the CGF and so much of that budget is spent on good causes. No way I could pocket the money with a clear conscience. It would be better spent on education or social work.

I've no idea how any financial compensation would be divvied up? I guess when the court representations are made it will be from the perspective of those that live in the few streets around the Park. Maybe they will propose that the payouts will be scaled to reflect the proximity of one's property to the park? So Park Avenue gets the biggest reward followed by Stanley Street, Duddingston Park and so on? I firmly believe that many of those residents neither seek nor expect compensation and that they too will follow your lead and donate the money back to the School. I certainly hope so.

Locked