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

[Bob Jefferson]

Change the record. That the best you can do?

[seanie]

PPAG have updated their website.

Still lying through their teeth as usual.

[Porty]

Yes. But its very encouraging. Reads like its finally sinking in.

[Pal of Porty]

There should be a law against being able to write material that is factually incorrect to recruit new members and raise money. Different points of view and opinions are obviously welcome and a part of life but a total disregard for facts and truths is scandalous.

[Porty]

The lies are a deliberate two fingerrs to the High school and Towerbank. PPAG got a formal written request to remove some specific lies from their website within 14 days or censure would be sought throughthe community council. The CC, those in charge, resisted putting the item on the agenda, claiming they spoke to the City Council who said it would be inappropriate to discuss PPAG. [admin: paragraph removed]

[rmolehusband]

claiming they spoke to the City Council who said it would be inappropriate to discuss PPAG.

How can it be inappropriate for the community council to review the actions of a local group that has a representative on that council? Will all due to respect to the minority of community councillors who try do a good job in representing us, PCC is a joke. We'd be better off with no community council than what we have now.

With persistance the matter came up on Monday, briefly. And apparentl Ros "Figgate"" Sutherlanmd said it was the PPAG AGM the following evening, they would discuss and respond within 14 days.

Having failed to act on their promise, surely they are holding the PCC in contempt and should have their representative thrown off now. However, they know it will be all over before the next PCC meeting anyway.

[Porty]

Wangi- thanks for editing, I apologise. Just because PPAG peddle lies to raise money from people who are deliberately misinformed it doesn't necessarily make them scum.

There is perhaps another reason to apologise. Apparently Ros said PPAG were meeting the next evening and would discuss the letter. She may not have said "AGM". That's the trouble with getting things second hand. However, it is still nowhere near good enough. I don't have the letter here, I may have a copy elsewhere, but, PPAG had that letter for about 6 or 7 weeks. They were given 14 days to respond prior to being reported to the CC. The matter could have been discussed at the October CC meeting but the office bearers would not put it on the agenda. And they tried to keep it off the agenda in November too. Eventually, last saturday, an approach was made to Nick Stroud who agreed to include it . Against the wishes of John Stewart and Diana Cairns who refusing to include it. (Diana is a PPAG ) John allegedly claims he asked the council who said it was inappropriate.

So PPAG had many weeks to respond and by a massive coincidence they happen to be meeting to discuss it the night after the CC meeting. After 7 weeks?? And what's to discuss, the lies are lies. They are obviously in no hurry to remove them and don't have the decency to respond in good time.

[Porty]

claiming they spoke to the City Council who said it would be inappropriate to discuss PPAG.

How can it be inappropriate for the community council to review the actions of a local group that has a representative on that council? .

It depends what question John Stewart asked the Council and we will never know. It is one of his favoured tactics. he reports the answer but the question remains a secret.

If he said "One of our special interest groups is being bullied. They are against a school in the park, which you know has been controversial. We have been asked to censure the group simply for having different views. Do you think its appropriate to include it on this months agenda?"

The answer would likely be "don't think it is appropriate"

If he said "Portobello Park Action Group have a rep on the Community Council. For a number of years they have been lying to the community in order to gain support and money to bring legal action against the Council. A formal approach has been made to them, asking for some of the lies to be removed from their website. Here's a copy of the lies. PPAG have ignored the request and we are now being asked to censure them. Should we include it on this months agenda."

I'd say the answer would be affirmative.

[seanie]

Let's look at PPAG's latest claims...

Firstly the Council did not insist that the site have playing fields next to the school. Obviously it would be preferable to have all the required pitches next to the school, but the difficulty in delivering that lead the Council to compromise.

The minimum site sizes for schools are contained within the School Premises (General Requirements and Standards) (Scotland) Regulations 1967. These recommend that a site for a secondary school of 1400 pupils together with onsite sports pitches should have a site area of 6.9Ha (1 7Acres). Unfortunately, in Edinburgh, it is virtually impossible to secure a site of this size without either breaching the Green Belt or building on existing open space or parkland.

While the best option is to provide the full complement of on-site pitches, and the benefits of pursuing this can outweigh the challenges of doing so, in some cases it is not possible to provide on-site grass pitches. In these cases, it is accepted that the provision of a full size all weather pitch within the grounds of a new secondary school can greatly assist with the provision of curriculum sports needs with pupils being bussed to the nearest available grass pitches when required. In the case of a new Portobello High School a minimum site size of 4.5Ha (11.1 Acres) would be desirable. By way of comparison, the proposed new Craigroyston High School, which has only a capacity of 900 pupils, is being built on a site of 4.3Ha (10.6Acres) with a single all weather pitch on-site and grass pitches within a short walking distance off-site - reflecting the challenges of developing within a tight site.

So the Council conducted the site selection on the basis of providing one all-weather pitch, with the required additional provision being met off site.

[seanie]

Secondly, the existing 7-a-side pitch simply isn't sufficient to meet the curricula needs of the school.

And if the new Boroughmuir does indeed end up with a 7-a-side pitch on the roof, it won't be sufficient to meet the curricula needs of the school.

Which is why pupils will be "bussed to Meggetland".

You would of thought PPAG could maybe have made that connection?

[seanie]

As to the height of the school, when considering site options the assumption was a three storey school with a fourth story element.

And whilst not an absolute necessity, it's obviously better for a school to be fairly central to its catchment and to have good transport links. The problem for Boroughmuir has been the absolute dearth of any viable sites till now. It was identified as the number one priority during the PPP2 prioritisation but wasn't taken forward for that very reason. As it is, whilst it not ideally located, the new site is at least pretty close to the existing one; about 500 yards away. And the other advantage of the new Boroughmuir site is it has the potential for some residential development to help offset the cost of purchase.

[Porty]

Whatever PPAG named their meeting on Tuesday, the outcome is clear. They said they would discuss whether to remove the lies from their website and respond to the letter within 14 days. Meanwhile they updated their website with another pack of lies.

It would not surprise me to learn that PPAG and or the office bearers at PCC are currently "lobbying" the TP administrator to curtail/moderate this discussion. Lies are trumpeted on their website but freedom of speech is not tolerated. They really don't like it.

[Epykat]

Which is why pupils will be "bussed to Meggetland".

So which bit of "bussed to Meggetland" doesn't mean "bussed to Meggetland". I'm confused.

[seanie]

Do you not think the "bussed to Meggetland" might drop the hint that a single 7-a-side pitch is indeed insufficient to meet the curricula needs of a high school?

[Epykat]

I don't think it's 'hinting' at anything. I think it's stating the fact that the pupils will be 'bussed to Meggetland' - I really think you're clutching at ridicule straws with this one.

[seanie]

OK, we'll take this nice and slow...

The claim that the Council insisted playing fields be adjacent to the site, and by implication couldn't be bussed off site, is false. In order to make more sites potentially viable, the Council compromised with having one all weather pitch, itself insufficient to meet all needs but going a long way towards them. The Council never ruled out bussing PHS pupils off site, although obviously it's not ideal.

PPAG then go on to imply the Council have been inconsistent in saying the existing PHS (7-a-side) pitch is insufficient because they're proposing a (7-a-side) pitch at Boroughmuir. They are indeed.

However, anyone but a cretin could probably work out that the fact that they'll still have to bus pupils off-site pretty much confirms that a 7-a-side pitch is indeed insufficient.

[Epykat]

OK, we'll take this nice and slow...

Yes, lets.

PPAG then go on to imply the Council have been inconsistent in saying the existing PHS (7-a-side) pitch is insufficient because they're proposing a (7-a-side) pitch at Boroughmuir. They are indeed.

However, anyone but a cretin could probably work out that the fact that they'll still have to bus pupils off-site pretty much confirms that a 7-a-side pitch is indeed insufficient.

I really think you've got to the stage where you're asking yourself questions and then answering them.

[seanie]

Still confused then?

[Epykat]

Still confused then?

I don't think I'm the confused one here

[seanie]

Ah, the Dunning-Kruger effect.

[Epykat]

Ah, the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Yep, I'd say that's definitely what's wrong with you.

[seanie]

Well, I can recognise the difference between an open plan design and a non-open plan design.

How are you getting on with that?

[rmolehusband]

What PPAG are in effect saying is that because somewhere else in Edinburgh may* have to put up with a sub-optimal school the children of Portobello should be happy to do the same. Desperate stuff.

* nothing has yet been decided about Boroughmuir.

[Porty]

Thats right. PPAG would happily have the council spend an extra 15 or 20 million pounds on a sub-optimal school on the combined st johns-phs site. A site that was included partly because the council were prepared to compromise on the pitch requirment and continue bussing. They also try to make leverage from the councils ability to purchase a site for boroughmuir. They claim the council stated they had no money to buy a site for porty.im not sure Thats true.

[rmolehusband]

You can imagine the chants from the PPAG rally now....

What do we want? ... A second rate school for the children of Porty!
When do we want it? ... After a pointless last minute legal action!

[Porty]

It depends what question John Stewart asked the Council and we will never know. It is one of his favoured tactics. he reports the answer but the question remains a secret.

If he said "One of our special interest groups is being bullied. They are against a school in the park, which you know has been controversial. We have been asked to censure the group simply for having different views. Do you think its appropriate to include it on this months agenda?"

The answer would likely be "don't think it is appropriate"

Turns out that we will know:

From: John Stewart
Sent: 16 October 2011 11:15
To: Eileen Hewitt
Subject: Fw: letter from PFANS, Portobello and Towerbank Parent Councils
Importance: High
Eileen,

You are probably aware of the controversy in Portobello over the siting of the new Portobello High School. The site the Council has chosen is Portobello Park which is common good land. This decision has caused great division in the community.

The PCC, with the agreement of all of its members, took a neutral stance when responding to the planning application, now granted, as we felt that this reflected both the split on this issue on the PCC and within the community.

One of the groups represented on the PCC, PPAG, ( Portobello Park Action Group ) who wish to save the park have raised an action at the Court of Session against the Council contesting their decision to build on common good land. This has angered many in the community, including the main group campaigning for a new school on this site, PFANS, ( Portobello For a New School ) They are not represented on the PCC but their main campaigner is as group representative of Towerbank School Council.

PFANS supporters wish the PPAG court action to be an agenda item on next month's PCC agenda and I, as Chair, have said no as that I feel is not a PCC issue but a matter between PPAG and the Council.

Now PFANS and Towerbank School Council want the PCC to debate a motion of censure regarding PPAG at the next PCC meeting, largely relating to the content of the PPAG web site. ( See attachment. )

My view is that the website of a group represented on a community council is solely the responsibility of that group and is not a topic that should be debated at a community council meeting. Just as the PCC was neutral over the planning application for the school itself, I feel we should continue to be neutral in all other matters regarding the new school and that the PCC should not even discuss a motion of censure regarding one of its group members.

I would welcome your advice on this and on the way I propose to handle this situation.

Apologies this is such a long email but it is a complex situation. A prompt reply would be greatly welcomed.

Regards,

John.

John skilfully fails to mention PPAG's misreprensentaion or fund raising. As he says: "this is such a long email" but rather unfortunately not quite long enough to divulge the true nature of the request for censure.

[rmolehusband]

My view is that the website of a group represented on a community council is solely the responsibility of that group and is not a topic that should be debated at a community council meeting.

The CC were more than happy to get fully involved when the content on the POL forums didn't suit them.

[Pal of Porty]

Where would you start with that letter! Nice to know that if you represent a group on the PCC, the chair thinks that honesty and integrity are irrelevant. You could not make it up.

[Porty]

----- Original Message -----
From: Eileen Hewitt
To: John Stewart
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 5:35 PM
Subject: RE: letter from PFANS, Portobello and Towerbank Parent Councils
Hi John

In my view it would not be appropriate to include an item on 'PPAG court action' on the CC agenda as this would mean overturning a decision made by the community council to remain neutral on the issue of the siting of the new school. It wouldn't be appropriate for the CC to censure PPAG as they are acting on their own behalf and haven't misrepresented the community council.

There was no request to include an item on "PPAG court action" somebody made that up and the Council based their response on it.

[Porty]

My view is that the website of a group represented on a community council is solely the responsibility of that group and is not a topic that should be debated at a community council meeting.

The CC were more than happy to get fully involved when the content on the POL forums didn't suit them.

You are so right, it was discussed at mutiple meetings, all types of censure were mooted and eventually it resulted in a split up. John's obvioulsy had a change of heart.

[wangi]

To continue that slight tangent - I think it's reasonable that the Portobello Online forums, and Talk Porty as it evolved into, is discussed at Portobello Community council. I'm all for open and transparent discussion. I might not agree with what's being said, but... And there's still an open invite from me to PCC for a Q&A session re Talk Porty...

And it's totally right that members of our community should be able to discuss concerns regarding claims made on PPAG's website at a Portobello Community Council meeting.

[Porty]

And it's totally right that members of our community should be able to discuss concerns regarding claims made on PPAG's website at a Portobello Community Council meeting.

Of course it is but John Stewart pitched his question to the Council in a manner that invited a "no" to inclusion on the agenda. Why did he have to ask them?

Just for completeness here is the formal request made to PPAG on behalf of two local schools [admin: Portobello High School Parent Council & Towerbank Parents Council] and PFANs.

15/10/11
Dear Sir/Madam

Misrepresentations made to obtain financial support for petition proceedings in the Court of Session.

We write to you as chair of Portobello Park Action Group on behalf of the undernoted organisations. We refer to the petition proceedings raised by you in the Court of Session in connection with the building of a new Portobello High School in part of Portobello Park.

While we recognise your right to follow due legal process in the courts we do not accept that the cost of that process should be met by donations gained with the use of known misrepresentations. Your fund raising web site has, for a considerable period of time, represented on its first page that:
• If the school is built on part of the park ‘housing will be built on the whole area’ of the park. That is a statement PPAG know to be a misrepresentation.
• ‘The golf course will be lost if the school is built in the park’. That is a statement PPAG know to be a misrepresentation.
• You ‘represent the SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY’ (sic) of the community (asserted in the opening line of your web site statement). There is no credible basis for that assertion. On the contrary the only reliable evidence on support suggests the majority of the community support the building of the school at Portobello Park.
We appreciate we cannot force the removal of these misrepresentations. However we wish to record our formal request that they be removed immediately. Where funds are sought based on known misrepresentations it can only serve to cause unnecessary animosity.
If the misrepresentations are not withdrawn within 7 days we will ask that the matter be addressed by Portobello Community Council by way of a motion of censure. PPAG are members of the council and, in our view, should act responsibly and fairly in soliciting financial support.

Yours Faithfully

The request is clear, it is not about the siting of the school, nor is it about the Court action so why did John Stewart lead the Council to believe it was?

[Makaveli]

That is a very good well presented letter.

I try and tell all our friends in the area about what is going on with PPAG and their falsehoods as without the Facebook pages and Talkporty they could be peddling their lies unchecked. If it wasn't for you guys on here I and many others would be oblivious to what is actually going on.

Keep up the good work.

[Porty]

The letter was not circulated amongst PCC members which would have allowed them to decide whether to debate the matter. The chairman refused to circulate on the basis the council thought it inappropriate to have the item on the agenda. The majority of PCC members are likely still in the dark about the integrity of PPAGs fund raising claims.

[Porty]

In his letter to the council the Chairman made much of PCcs supposed neutrality. The implication being that any further discussion on the matter would be going over old ground-PCC had made their minds up.

Yet the month before, at very short notice and without approaching the City Council he granted PPAG a slot on the agenda to put forward their rationale for taking legal action. Its one rule for some and the opposite for others in the neutral environment at PCC.