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

[seanie]

admin: For earlier discussion on Portobello High School on Portobello Park see the following threads:

• New Portobello High School - Where and how? (starting Oct 2005)
  New Portobello High School - on going issues (starting Oct 2007)
  New Portobello High School - planning application (starting Oct 2010)
  New Portobello High School - planning application granted (starting Feb 2011)

Just caught site of the new PPAG leaflet asking for donations.

The front states that the Council's...

"traffic survey described the A1 as a minor road...."

The Traffic Assessment can be found here;

http://citydev-portal.edinburgh.gov.uk/ ... =584429235

You can check for yourself, just search for the word minor.

See if you can find this alleged description.

[wangi]

Just caught site of the new PPAG leaflet asking for donations.

See: http://www.facebook.com/saveportypark

[Bob Jefferson]

[seashell]

Go on - post the amended version on their facebook page!

[Bob Jefferson]

I would, but I think I have to be invited first. Their last Facebook group was open and was very quickly over-run by local people who were in favour of the new school. They don't seem to like getting involved in debate. Funny that.

[seanie]

Well I've been posting. Assume it won't last long.

[Bob Jefferson]

Oh yeah, you just have to pretend that you 'Like' their page. This should be fun, while it lasts.

[Porty]

I like it.

[Pal of Porty]

What a disgraceful scaremongering poster.

Pity they forgot to mention that no addiional kids will be crossing the A1 once the school is built and that the design has cleverely included an 'inner ringway' of paths so the kids do not even have to use the pavement, never mind the road.

Totally out of order.

[Pal of Porty]

Talking of the PPAG Facebook page - have you seen the photo of the young kids enjoying themeselves? Must have been a wee while ago because the ones I know are about 6 feet tall now!

[Porty]

I appear to have been blocked from posting on the "save Porty Park" facebook page and think a couple of my posts have been deleted. No worries tho' Bob and Seanie can fight the fight with consumate ease.

[wangi]

Not sure why you guys are going over all the same ground again... Anyways, looks like nobody there has read this:

i.e. purchased by City of Edinburgh for £25k (a not inconsiderable sum), plus a further payment of £839-17s-8d to reimburse the cost of creating Duke St (now Park Ave)! I wonder where the "it was gifted" myth came from - was that the original park & golf course site (bounded by Christian Path to N, Hope Ln to W, railway to S and Brunstane Rd to E - now the HLR industrial estate)? (See this map, although there's an 1896 one that shows it proper...)

[Porty]

I note that "Save Porty Park" is doing an Alison Connelly; removing posts that reveal the real them. Pathetic.

[seanie]

I kid you not, but someone's now posted a Michael Jackson video to rally support.

[wangi]

But we're still safe on the Godwin's law front?

[rmolehusband]

But we're still safe on the Godwin's law front?

oooh, tempting....

[seanie]

I think you'll find Goodwin's Law first came up back in 2006 on this subject.

[wangi]

Anyways, looks like nobody there has read this:

porty-park-deeds-p1.jpg

i.e. purchased by City of Edinburgh for £25k (a not inconsiderable sum), plus a further payment of £839-17s-8d to reimburse the cost of creating Duke St (now Park Ave)! I wonder where the "it was gifted" myth came from...

To put that in context: £25k in 1898 is - depending on the indicator used - equivalent to £2 million to £21 million in today's money. Hardly given away.

[Porty]

admin: For earlier discussion on Portobello High School on Portobello Park see the following threads:

• New Portobello High School - Where and how? (starting Oct 2005)
  New Portobello High School - on going issues (starting Oct 2007)
  New Portobello High School - planning application (starting Oct 2010)
  New Portobello High School - planning application granted (starting Feb 2011)

But we're still safe on the Godwin's law front?

oooh, tempting....

Jospeh Stalin would be a more appropriate comparison for the way "Save Porty Park" (who he?) is monitoring the page. Too thick not to trip himself every now and again but easily fixed when one is an administrator. Practising the dastardly tricks they used to and still accuse Bob of doing, which as far as I know he never did. And Bob's not been an administrator here, for how long? He is alluding to the same sort of thing has has he ever posted here? (He being 13th post down on the link posting between Bob and Sean)

[wangi]

Regarding Bob he's never been a moderator/admin on Talk Porty (i.e. since 2007) and has the same access as anyone else. Back on the Portobello Online forum he stood down in 2006, or so? Before that I can fairly confidently say there was no "dastardly tricks" either.

Any moderation done to posts - and there's very little of that - is clearly marked to ensure transparency. Blank/deleted posts in any of the school threads is a result of their author taking that action - not me.

Cannot comment on individuals and if they've posted here or not (and haven't even looked).

L/

[Porty]

The longevity of this place,I consider TP a continuance of POL, is a testament to fair stewardship and moderation. If the powers at be chose to bar posters for no good reason and consistently delete posts that don't suit them it simply would not last.

[seanie]

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!

I'm genuinely flummoxed by this one. Figgate Park and Quarry Park? What developments have been considered for either of these?

[Porty]

I think its faux pax by the author. Unless he's bracketing park improvments along with proprty development?

I can't imagine that GD is as dense as her posts portray. She seems to be deliberately goading Seanie, refusing to acknowledge any of the facts he puts forward and keeps banging on aboutthe council website being down. Does she know about the filter that prevented certain comments being made?

[SoupDragon]

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!

I'm genuinely flummoxed by this one. Figgate Park and Quarry Park? What developments have been considered for either of these?

It could be a wonderful Mobius Loop

Figgate Park was put forward as an alternative site by some people, cant remember who, so therefore it was considered ,and rejected, for development
But you can then state Figgate park was considered for development...

[Makaveli]

I must say I have never seen the 'c' word used on FB before!!!! I do hope none of the kids drawing the famous poster are reading the SPP page as there may be one or two awkward questions for some parents tonight!!!

Think it also shows the desperation on the side of a losing campaign.

[seanie]

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

Shameful.

[rmolehusband]

Think it also shows the desperation on the side of a losing campaign.

So it's not just me then. I guess think the desperation has just reached breaking point and the page administrator* has gone nuclear, looks like everyone who has expressed any support for the school has been expunged. Stalinist indeed.

I quite surreal though, there are some excellent threads where KD appears to be arguing with herself. In many ways it actually makes more sense now.


Is KS the moderator?

[rmolehusband]

I think you had a Lucky escape Sean, sounded like Mr. Bean was planning to give you a roasting.

[seanie]

I think there were more than one person as mod; the posting style kept changing.

[seanie]

Weird how some people take an argument against their views as some kind of personal insult.

[Nelson Hatstand]

Always take a screengrab.

[seanie]

It's also weird how a lack of moral character, whereby it's acceptable to simply invent 'facts' and delete inconvenient points of view, is coupled with such incompetence that it takes the best part of a week to work out how to delete dissenting views. Why would anyone give money to such people?

[Bob Jefferson]

It was inevitable that they would eventually resort to deleting dissenting views. PPAG has a history of this. They did it on their own website and have already abandoned their previous Fb page when they discovered that the only posters were in support of the school. I'm currently on holiday, otherwise I would have taken the time to copy the threads. I had assumed it was Dave C who had set it up but I could be wrong. Ironic really that it was the PPAG.supporters who were incapable of conducting a civilised debate without resorting to insults and childish name-calling and yet it is our posts that are removed. Still, fun while it lasted and must go down as yet another huge own-goal from PPAG.

[seanie]

Given that those running the Portobello Park Action Group lack the integrity to tolerate dissenting views I'll have to re-post my final submission here;

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.