New Portobello High School - PPAG/"Save Porty Park"

[seanie]

And to think that someone was, on the basis of hearsay, criticising Bob Jefferson for supposedly deleting dissenting points of view on this web site. I wonder what they think of the gutting performed by Save Porty Park?

[rmolehusband]

Careful now, someone has already had their name redacted from this thread as they don't like their name being used on here. I'm not convinced that one can legitimately complain if after posting on one public forum using a real name someone quotes or refers to you in another by the same name, but complain he did and he probably will do again.

I suggest we just refer to him as Ryan Giggs from now on.

[seanie]

Theyvcan complain away. They were making a big deal about the deletion of dissenting views based on the compelling evidence of comments on a forum. The PPAG facebook site has just deleted 100's of comments in plain sight. I'm sure they'll step up and condemn this intolerance of divergent views.

[Bob Jefferson]

Remember to 'unlike'. Don't want them claiming supporters they don't have. Re the 'development' of Joppa Quarry Park, can only assume it refers to the improvements discussed in Maureen's current newsletter.

[seanie]

On Joppa Quarry Park, I have a consultation (by email and hard copy) out to those living nearby Joppa Quarry Park (see attached plan). The proposal is to re-create the mark-out 7-a-side pitch with goals, that was there before, and also to provide a kick about goals are next to the current playground. I am very hoping this can be put in place during the current summer holidays.

The Council are proposing a 7-a-side-pitch on Joppa Quarry Park? The inhuman monsters!!! Quick..the torches!...the pitchforks!

TO THE BARRICADES!!!!!!

and Figgate Park?

[seanie]

We know that the Portobello Park Action Group have a track record of saying things that aren't true; we also know they delete evidence when they they've been found out saying things that aren't true; why would anyone give money to such an unreliable organisation~?

[seanie]

I'm not very computer literate, and it doesn't seem to be right as far as I can see, but I've tried to set up a counter web-site.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Save-Port ... 822?ref=ts

[wangi]

Savage Stalinist editing of the page. The PPAG leadership are devoid of any intellectual integrity at all.

It's quite something. On the wall the "read all nn posts" links are still accounting for the deleted posts. Click on them and it's a monologue.

EDIT: And my posts had originally survived the chop - being 100% factual and all that jazz. Gone now.

[seanie]

I would urge everyone to look at the Save Porty Park page. Their intolerance of any dissent reveals a quite totalitarian mindset. They also appear to believe that making things up is quite acceptable.

[Makaveli]

I've unliked the Save Porty Park Page now too as the intolerance there was quite frightening.

The hypocrisy was staggering.

[seanie]

On the plus side.....the comments that remain make them look even more unhinged.

[Porty]

Utterly disgraceful. They have managed to mimic the park with their webpage; hardly anyone on it and when types the don't approve of turn up, they are soon despatched.

They have likely done irrepreable damage to their own page. Who on earth would one want to post in that regime?

[Makaveli]

I see Golf Delta is having a wee mini rant over on the SPP page - I find it rather amusing that Golf Delta is asking where everyone has gone when it is clear for all to see that all our posts have been deleted!!!

Why would you bother hanging around when that kind of censorship is happening?

[rmolehusband]

It's not lying, it's mistakenly inferring. So that's OK then.
What a trully stupid woman she[3] appears to be[1]. I'm assuming someone on here has met her IRL, surely she can't be as crass as her online persona[2]?

[1] I am not in any way suggesting she is stupid, merely that to the casual reader her postings could give that impression.
[2] I am not in any way suggesting she is crass in real life, merely that to the casual reader her online persona could give that impression.
[3] all pronouns in this post are fictitious, any similarity to actual persons, living or PPAG, is purely coincidental.

[seanie]

On the Save Porty Park facebook page we find the following from Gillian Dunn;

Where has everyone gone? The pseudo environmentalists whose true colours have shone brightly this last weeki. They have shown themselves to be hypocrites of the highest order. They are basically saying they are prepared to act as a mouthpiece for the council and their payoff is that they're precious offspring don't have to be inconvenieced by being taught in portocabins. Despite proclaiming to be environmentalists it is suddenly ok to build on a park because there is something in it for them. No surprises there then.

Where has everyone gone? Their posts were deleted and they were banned from posting. That's why the voices in favour of the park have disappeared Gillian Dunn.

[seanie]

I’ve already described what you might be looking for in an ideal site; but no such site exists. So inevitably there has to be some sort of compromise or we’ll never get the new school that’s needed. Different people will come to different conclusions about what compromises are acceptable and what aren’t. Some people won’t countenance any loss of greenspace, and that is a perfectly legitimate point of view; we all value parks and open spaces. But those of us who support building the school on the park take the view that, in these circumstances, the benefits of building on the park outweigh the costs. In large part that’s because the school will finally be established on a site big enough to support the curriculum, but it’s also because of how the park is used at present. This proposal will actually improve the amenity of the park.

[seanie]

As to why this proposal will improve the amenity of the park overall;

Firstly the golf course is unaffected. The school does not encroach in any way and a continuous boundary east to west ensures that the most direct routes to and from the school will be along Park Avenue and Hope Lane, not across the golf course. The two will sit side by side quite happily.

Secondly, the area where the school will be sited is designated as playing fields, but the pitches are poor quality and can’t sustain much use. The two, floodlit, all-weather pitches for the school are to be freely accessible to the community, and will be a huge improvement. Far more people will be able to access higher quality sports facilties. So that function of the park will not only be retained but enhanced.

Thirdly, apart from the limited use of the pitches, the park is used mainly for dog-walking. As part of the project, new paths will be installed through the perimeter woodland to the east and west of the Park, and along the frontage of the school where there will be a public plaza and an area of public green space. These paths will increase the accessibility of the site and allow more people to enjoy the area. The school is located to the western end, with the pitches to the east and at low level due to the sloping site, so people will still be able to enjoy the view out over the golf course to the Forth and towards Arthur’s Seat. Again a significant function of the park function will not only be retained but enhanced.

Outside of those functions the park is little used at present. Since those functions will be improved, the proposal strikes many of us as achieving a good balance. Not ideal granted, but the best outcome out of what were very limited options. Instead of the rather negelected and underused space that exists at present, the school and park combined could create a very vibrant new focus for activity that can benefit the whole community.

[seanie]

Gillian Dunn also posts the following;

Has anyone else noticed the similarities in writing style of Bob Jefferson and Reginald Molehusband. I could be getting paranoid but I'm starting to think they could be one and the same person.

and;

In the interest of truth I would like to point out that I mistakenly inferred in a previous post that the City of Edinburgh Coucil were Sean Watters' eployers - I actully meant puppet masters.

Focusing on the substantive issues as ever.

[Makaveli]

Being very local to the area where the new school will be build (Brunstane) I can't wait for the improvements to Porty Park as you rightly point out there is really no good reason to visit Porty Park just now unless you are a local dog walker. We usually got to the Figgy which is further from our house but it is a much nicer park than Porty Park due to the recent upgrade.

I am sure that once the new re-development of Porty Park is complete we will probably utilise it more than the Figgy as it is much closer to us and, by the looks of the plans, be significantly better and more use-able than it currently is.

[seanie]

[name removed] likes Gillian Dunn's last post.

[seanie]

John Kelly posts;

Portobello Park was acquired by the Council as a Recreation Ground for the benefit of everybody in Edinburgh. Why does the Council want to throw it away?

They need to build a new Portobello High School John Kelly, and the pitch area is the best available site.

[seanie]

Save Porty Park says;

"The council stand to make a significant profit from the sale of the existing school site to property developers but have not said how this will be spent."

This is a lie. At the full Council meeting of 11th March 2010, attended by Cllr Stephen Hawkins, the following was agreed;

To ring-fence any receipt from the disposal of the site of the existing Portobello High School for future reinvestment into the Children and Families estate.

The Council has committed any proceeds to capital investment in the school estate. Save Porty Park knows this since I posted the above quote and it was deleted by Save Porty Park.

[Epykat]

[name removed] likes Gillian Dunn's last post

That'll be her card marked then.......

[seanie]

Simple statement of fact.

[seanie]

[name removed] thinks Gillian Dunn's post is "Too too funny".

Gililan Dunn replies;

Too, too true! Lol

.

[seanie]

I have been in somewhat testy correspondence with one opponent of the new school in the park. I confess I was fairly outraged by the deletion of posts from the Save Porty Park Faceboook site and used some intemperate language. I chose to delete the posts in question. I made reference to someone's poor punctuation, and how private education may not be all it's cracked up to be. The response;

Your obvious jealousy towards private education is nobodies fault but your own. It is nobody elses fault you cannot afford your children such priviledges. No wonder you want a new school if only to try and compete even if this will never be true.

[administrator]

Please keep discussion here related to substantive comments made on the Save Porty Park Facebook page. Avoid the trivial details please.

Also ensure when citing a post on that page that you do so accurately.

Thanks

[seanie]

Save Porty Park says;

Portobello Park, Inverleith Park, Figgate Park, Cairntow Park, Quarry Park ALL considered by the council in recent months for development in one form or another. Some escaped, some are still fighting! THIS FIGHT IS NOT SCHOOL VERSUS PARK it is the people versus new council policy. If you love any park you should be supporting us because if you don't, where does it end

Figgate Park and Quarry Park? What developments have been proposed there in recent months?

The question was put to Save Porty Park but no answer was given.

[seanie]

Save Porty Park says;

Just for accuracy PPAG suggested using the flat area of Figgate Park (Hamilton Terrace entrance) for pitches for new primary school, during the consultation considering a new build for St Johns.

Just for accuracy, that's a lie. During the 2006 consultation on sites, the Portobello Park Action Group insisted that Figgate Park be included as an option for St John's. When challenged on their advocacy for building on a park, they invented an excuse whereby St John's would be built on Figgate Park and the existing site turned into public space.

[seanie]

I think that's worth quoting again;

Your obvious jealousy towards private education is nobodies fault but your own. It is nobody elses fault you cannot afford your children such priviledges. No wonder you want a new school if only to try and compete even if this will never be true.

[seanie]

Yep. Those of us who do want a new Portobello High School are only jealous of those who can afford private education. No matter what we do, us comprehensive types will never be good enough.

[seanie]

Who feels like giving a donation?

You should maybe get a receipt....

[seanie]

Your obvious jealousy towards private education is nobodies fault but your own. It is nobody elses fault you cannot afford your children such priviledges. No wonder you want a new school if only to try and compete even if this will never be true.

I must confess I'm stymied. Since our kids couldn't possibly compete with the private schools, there's not much point in a new school is there? Why waste money educating local children when they could never truly compete?

[seanie]

I did point out that it should be nobody's not nobodies, but it didn't go down well.

[Makaveli]

Vanishing green space won't return
WILLIAM WILSON should have checked his facts more carefully before writing his letter (Beware NIMBYs at work in new school row, letters, April 14). He states that Portobello Park Action Group has "continually threatened to drag the process through the courts".

This is untrue. At no point has the group threatened to go to court; what we have done is to point out the council would need to go to court if it wanted permission to build on Portobello Park, which is common good land.

This was finally acknowledged by the council in a report to the finance and resources committee in January of this year. PPAG does not make the law, only asks that the council observe it.

It is also not true to claim that PPAG did not suggest any alternative sites for the new school. Indeed, we have written on many occasions to the council suggesting other options for the new school site but to no avail. Moreover, the group was not given the opportunity to suggest any alternative sites at the carefully stage-managed public "consultation" meeting in the town hall, as it was hijacked by previously raised questions about decants.

What Mr Wilson seems to want to ignore is that many people (the 3000 who have signed our petition), from all over Portobello and its environs object to any development of any kind on the park.

In a world of fast-disappearing green space, they simply want to safeguard it for future generations, as once built on it will be lost forever.
Diana Cairns, West Brighton Crescent, Edinburgh

Looks like a change of tune on the court action front from three years ago!!!