New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[Porty]

Muy bueno .

[Porty]

I agree with Bob. Dont understand why the PPAG posse feel the need to personalise the debate. Even seashell, an innocent observer , has endured suspiciom about her "motives".

Innocent bystander or agent of the state?

Bystander is quite different from observer. Why do you persist with making things up?

[Porty]

Do you know anyone even interested in this debate, let alone willing to take the time to post, who is not from the area or who does not have children at PHS. .

I do, i know quite a few. I have to confess I am surprised you ask, as .............

You seem to forget that this case is of interest outwith our little area. It will create a very worrying precedent if City of Edinburgh get away with this. There are many people outwith the PPAG who are very keen to make sure this does not happen. This dispute is about the land. .

If you know "many people" from outwith our little area and PPAG, who are interested in this debate, why wouldn't we?

Don't take this the wrong way Betty; you appear to be calling your own personal experience to question. Its like you are two different people, which would probably be a first here on Talkporty. Are you like "Save Porty Park" - several people with the same identity? I think you must be. it would certainly explain your continuing failure to grasp what's being said, era ti era.

[Epykat]

If you know "many people" from outwith our little area and PPAG, who are interested in this debate, why wouldn't we?

Do you really think you would know EVERYBODY that Betty knows? Doesn't figure. You know people we don't know...flawed argument.

[Makaveli]

I think you may have misread Porty's comment - I think he meant that Betty knows people out with Portobello who are interested in this subject and Porty also knows other people who are interested in this subject too - not the same people as Betty.

[Epykat]

I think you may have misread Porty's comment - I think he meant that Betty knows people out with Portobello who are interested in this subject and Porty also knows other people who are interested in this subject too - not the same people as Betty.

It still doesn't follow that just because he doesn't know them/know of them, that they don't exist.

[Makaveli]

I don't see where Porty says that they don't exist.

[Epykat]

I don't see where Porty says that they don't exist.

Yawn....here we go again......it was implied.

[Makaveli]

I don't even see where it is implied to be honest.

And there is no need for the yawn really is there?

[Epykat]

I don't even see where it is implied to be honest.

And there is no need for the yawn really is there?

I apologise, it is rude to yawn in public, it makes your eyes water and then you have to dry them.

[Bob Jefferson]

I think Porty is trying to make a very simple point. Betty seems surprised that someone "not from the area" should take an interest in this issue. But, she also states:

You seem to forget that this case is of interest outwith our little area.

So she is contradicting herself.

[Makaveli]

hee hee

[Betty Windsor]

I think Porty is trying to make a very simple point. Betty seems surprised that someone "not from the area" should take an interest in this issue. But, she also states:

You seem to forget that this case is of interest outwith our little area.

So she is contradicting herself.

I appreciate it may sound contradictory but I have yet to meet anyone who is not from our area or who does not have children set to go to the new school who is as passionate about the destruction of the park as Seashell appears to be. To the extent that she went to court to witness the proceedings.
It strikes me as an anomoly.

[Bob Jefferson]

There are plenty of people on either side of the argument who don't have children set to go to the new school, so that is irrelevant. What you seem to object to is the fact that she is, in your view, horror of horrors, an 'incomer'. Is that correct?

[Epykat]

If you know "many people" from outwith our little area and PPAG, who are interested in this debate, why wouldn't we?

Porty, I apologise. I've re-read your post and I did misunderstand what you meant.

[Porty]

Apology accepted Epykat, no offence taken

I think Porty is trying to make a very simple point. Betty seems surprised that someone "not from the area" should take an interest in this issue. But, she also states:

You seem to forget that this case is of interest outwith our little area.

So she is contradicting herself.

I appreciate it may sound contradictory but I have yet to meet anyone who is not from our area or who does not have children set to go to the new school who is as passionate about the destruction of the park as Seashell appears to be. To the extent that she went to court to witness the proceedings.
It strikes me as an anomoly.

You should appreciate it IS contradictory.

You never previoulsy mentioned anything about passion. Are you saying the "many people" you know, outwith our little area and PPAG, who are interested, aren't really that bothered? How do you know all this stuff?

Seashell may be an anomaly but that doesn't devalue her interest or her contribution. I don't know but it is possible she has an interest in this type of issue and the fact some NIMBY's are trying to rewrite the law on ICGLis something she feels passionate about. Lots of people have quirky interests- Martin O'Neill, the Sunderland manager, has a passion and interest in criminal cases and often attends court to observe proceedings on matters that he has no personal connection with.. Doesn't make him an agent for the state.

[Betty Windsor]

There are plenty of people on either side of the argument who don't have children set to go to the new school, so that is irrelevant. What you seem to object to is the fact that she is, in your view, horror of horrors, an 'incomer'. Is that correct?

There may well be plenty of people on both sides of the arguement who don't have children set to go to the new school but Porty and Seashell aside I haven't come across them.
And Bob I can assure you I have abolutely no problem with incomers. In fact I believe we owe a huge debt to people like Diana Cairns and Stephen Hawkins for the work they are currently doing and their vital role in keeping out Viridor and the supermarket development.
I think the way they have been treated by a small section of the school on the park folk is shameful.
But that is just my opinion.

[Betty Windsor]

I agree with Bob. Dont understand why the PPAG posse feel the need to personalise the debate. Even seashell, an innocent observer , has endured suspiciom about her "motives".

Innocent bystander or agent of the state?

Bystander is quite different from observer. Why do you persist with making things up?

Iapologise for my mistake you're right it should have read
Seashell, innocent observer or agent of the state?

Although I'm not sure that the two words have such radically different meanings.

[Porty]

Iapologise for my mistake you're right it should have read
Seashell, innocent observer or agent of the state?

Although I'm not sure that the two words have such radically different meanings.

One particpates the other doesn't. There's a radical difference between footballers and spectarors, no?

[Betty Windsor]

Iapologise for my mistake you're right it should have read
Seashell, innocent observer or agent of the state?

Although I'm not sure that the two words have such radically different meanings.

One particpates the other doesn't. There's a radical difference between footballers and spectarors, no?

Excuse my ignorance but which one participates?
When I looked it up online it had them as synonyms.
Regardless, it was a mistake and being accused of making thing up (is that the same as lying) is a bit of an overstatement.

[Maria]

There may well be plenty of people on both sides of the arguement who don't have children set to go to the new school but Porty and Seashell aside I haven't come across them.

Now, Betty, how could you have forgotten me?

[Porty]

The mystery deepens:

There may well be plenty of people on both sides of the arguement who don't have children set to go to the new school but Porty and Seashell aside I haven't come across them.

and

You seem to forget that this case is of interest outwith our little area. It will create a very worrying precedent if City of Edinburgh get away with this. There are many people outwith the PPAG who are very keen to make sure this does not happen. This dispute is about the land. .

Betty- what are we to make of this? Either you've never come across the people from outwith our little area and PPAG- in which case, how do you know they exist? .. or.... all of the "many people" in those two sub-groups have childern who are set to go to the new school. People from outside the area and outwith PPAG ALL have children set to go to the new school but they are opposed to the new school, it doesn't seem very likely.

Can you see why people get the impression you simply make things up?

[Bob Jefferson]

Can I suggest a Venn diagram?

[Porty]

I really don't get why Betty so keen to brand Seashell.

Feb 1st is the next big day in the court case and by a spooky coincidence it is also the 7th anniversary of Seashell registering on pol/talkporty. I say coincidence, could it be something more, did the state plant her seven years ago?

Seashell's most active topic is not the school, its the HLR roundabout thread- why, when she lives outwith the area, is she so passionate about this roundabout? I think we should know.

[Pal of Porty]

Bumped into a couple of people from the Christians yesterday. They informed me they were sick and tired of the patronising manner that one or two of the PPAGers keep referring to them. Two less for you Barbara Windsor when you refer to the poor little dears.

[Franck]

There are plenty of people on either side of the argument who don't have children set to go to the new school, so that is irrelevant. What you seem to object to is the fact that she is, in your view, horror of horrors, an 'incomer'. Is that correct?

There may well be plenty of people on both sides of the arguement who don't have children set to go to the new school but Porty and Seashell aside I haven't come across them.
And Bob I can assure you I have abolutely no problem with incomers. In fact I believe we owe a huge debt to people like Diana Cairns and Stephen Hawkins for the work they are currently doing and their vital role in keeping out Viridor and the supermarket development.
I think the way they have been treated by a small section of the school on the park folk is shameful.
But that is just my opinion.

Neither of my children will follow my glorious footsteps in attending PHS, one is at Holyrood, to be followed by the other.As a life-long resident of PHS and someone who has played football on that park since I was a nipper at Brunstane primary, who's played golf there for over 30 years, I want the school to be sited there.I know losing parkland is rubbish and I've argued with Seanie on here about alternatives, mostly playing devils advocate, but it does seem to be the most obvious and sensible choice.

I know neither DC or SH and can't really be bothered with nimbyism (not suggesting they are) but communities need people to contribute, if only to negate the zero contribution they get from me and most of the community who only moan about things when it's too late and we're not happy with whatever....viridor would be a great example...not sure about the supermarket, I actually thought that was a decent idea.

[Bob Jefferson]

It's always refreshing to hear opinions from people other than 'the usual suspects'. Let's hear from some more of you who haven't posted on this topic before. And we are all going to promise to be gentle with you, whatever your viewpoint.

[Lashylass]

....and we were all born yesterday.

[Bob Jefferson]

You won't know unless you try. I have no idea who you are or what your views are on this matter so I'm not going to prejudge you. But like I said, we all know the arguments for and against the school from the battle-hardened stalwarts on either side. What would be refreshing would be to hear from people who can see both sides of the argument, or at least have something new to add to the debate.

[Porty]

"Let us leave no stone unturned in our quest for a new site for the school"- might be worth a pop!

[Betty Windsor]

....and we were all born yesterday.

Dissenting voices are not well tolerated on this forum.
Maybe BJ thought you hadn't read the earlier posts.

[Porty]

On the contrary, not only are dissenting voices tolerated, without exception they are engaged with. Even cretinous posts get the time of day.

Betty- have you figured out your story about the sub groups from outwith the area, yet?

[Charlie]

To Bob's request for someone else to join the thread....

I agree with people above... whom I would quote if I knew how to. Never met them (to my knowledge), but think there are a small number of community activists who deserve our praise for their determination to object to stuff... mostly bad stuff (e.g. viridor).

I hear a lot of criticism - feels like some of it is justified - but not a lot of people putting themselves forward as an alternative (thinking PCC here). Feels like some people spend a lot of their time and energy as a cause for good in Portobello - on the whole they're more right than wrong.

On the subject of the school, I have sympathy with the loss of land - you never get it back. But for me, the land in question is a brown field site rather than green field - it's underused, covered in poo and I would not let my kids play there.

When this is over, hope we can all turn our attention to a common goal - the banning of all dogs. If too radical, then the banning of all dog ownership in Porty. (Still too much?) .... then just something, so I can have a pleasant stroll without saying "mind the poo" every 10 steps! Too ranty? Off topic?

Would be nice to have the resources to be a bit more creative about the design and location of the school. But is the current plan more right than wrong? Yes, I think so....

As for delays and disruption to the plan caused by the legal process, think I'm happier that this is being done (i.e. the PPAG challenge is being made) rather than taken as read that the land can be built on. Think this tells me that we have some fantastic activists in portobello who should be applauded for their tenacity. That said, I do hope the challenge is unsuccessful.

[Betty Windsor]

You won't know unless you try. I have no idea who you are or what your views are on this matter so I'm not going to prejudge you. But like I said, we all know the arguments for and against the school from the battle-hardened stalwarts on either side. What would be refreshing would be to hear from people who can see both sides of the argument, or at least have something new to add to the debate.

You imagine you are the only ones who can see both sides of the argument. I can also see both sides of the argument and as stated umpteen times before I can totally understand why people would want to build the school on the park if they believe that there is no viable alternative. A school on the park supporter friend of mine was dismayed to find out last week the park is common good land. I suspect there may be other people in her position-not fully aware of the implications of this.
I have received disrespectful comments for daring to disagree and anyone who can read only has to look at previous posts to see this.
So I'm sure if Lashylass agrees with you she will have a grand time on this site otherwise she should be prepared to be ridiculed.
Do you ever wonder why so few people post these days?

[Scoop]

To Bob's request for someone else to join the thread....

I agree with people above... whom I would quote if I knew how to. Never met them (to my knowledge), but think there are a small number of community activists who deserve our praise for their determination to object to stuff... mostly bad stuff (e.g. viridor).

I hear a lot of criticism - feels like some of it is justified - but not a lot of people putting themselves forward as an alternative (thinking PCC here). Feels like some people spend a lot of their time and energy as a cause for good in Portobello - on the whole they're more right than wrong.

On the subject of the school, I have sympathy with the loss of land - you never get it back. But for me, the land in question is a brown field site rather than green field - it's underused, covered in poo and I would not let my kids play there.

When this is over, hope we can all turn our attention to a common goal - the banning of all dogs. If too radical, then the banning of all dog ownership in Porty. (Still too much?) .... then just something, so I can have a pleasant stroll without saying "mind the poo" every 10 steps! Too ranty? Off topic?

Would be nice to have the resources to be a bit more creative about the design and location of the school. But is the current plan more right than wrong? Yes, I think so....

As for delays and disruption to the plan caused by the legal process, think I'm happier that this is being done (i.e. the PPAG challenge is being made) rather than taken as read that the land can be built on. Think this tells me that we have some fantastic activists in portobello who should be applauded for their tenacity. That said, I do hope the challenge is unsuccessful.

Smartest comment to date.