New Portobello High School - PPAG win legal appeal

[rmolehusband]

There's a wonderfully ironic comment from one Liz McMahon over on the SPP facebook page:

Begining to think the council will use all our parks for anything they want

It kinds of gets to the root of the issue. Building the school on Portobello park is what we want. We want the council to build the school on our park. Common good or not, It is, as Ms McMahon correctly points out, ours, so we should be allowed to determine what is done with it.

(I accept that the 'we' in this are not unanimous, but we live in a democracy and the mandate is pretty clear)

[Epykat]

I've just read back a bit and apparently Andy Wightman agreed it was CG - handy that he's now saying it might not be. These people really are either very indecisive or their judgements can't be trusted if they can keep jumping back and forwards when it suits them.

This is going to sound mental:

Mr Wightman may be one of those people, when presented with new evidence, revaluates and considers the potential impact of that evidence. Having learned more about the issue, his opinion may start to evolve, it could even end up with him changing his mind.

Welcome David.

And it's taken him years and years to do that? This story has been in the papers over and over and over again, and somebody with such a keen interest in this very subject only decides in the last 2-3 weeks to look into it further?

Hello David.

[wangi]

Avril: this comment by Andy Wightman might help:

I am not a sour-faced wee man. I am actually quite bright and cheery. Anyhow, I just want to place on the record that I have never claimed that the land is common good. I merely suggested that it might be back in 2006. I took no part in any campaign for or against and so the positions adopted by the various parties are their responsibility. I do, however have a great interest in this subject and, when I was presented with various pieces of evidence recently, it became clear that there was a legitimate doubt. The fact that I have expressed that doubt is not to support one side or another. I care about common good and it does no-one any good to go around pretending that the question has been settled when it has not.

[rmolehusband]

Let's not forget the who is solely to blame for the fact that construction of our new school is not currently under way - PPAG and their supporters. It is contemptible, though predictable, that they, and you Betty, are now suggesting that it is all the council's fault and that heads should roll.

And it's statements like that that really get peoples' backs up. If the Council or the lawyers acting on their behalf had really checked things out properly before they started as they should have done, this would never have happened,

Sorry, but that is utter nonsense. We're dealing with interpretation of laws, laws that both legal councils referred to as vague. Vague enough for one senior judge to rule one way only to have three senior judges over-rule her on appeal. Vague enough for two other councils in very similar circumstances to have been told by courts that they did not need legal permission at all. How, given all that, you have expected the council to have "really checked things out properly"? The only way to get a decision on the law was to go to court.

Seriously, simple question if you can resist temptation to dodge it, what else could they have done?

[Epykat]

Avril: this comment by Andy Wightman might help:

I am not a sour-faced wee man. I am actually quite bright and cheery. Anyhow, I just want to place on the record that I have never claimed that the land is common good. I merely suggested that it might be back in 2006. I took no part in any campaign for or against and so the positions adopted by the various parties are their responsibility. I do, however have a great interest in this subject and, when I was presented with various pieces of evidence recently, it became clear that there was a legitimate doubt. The fact that I have expressed that doubt is not to support one side or another. I care about common good and it does no-one any good to go around pretending that the question has been settled when it has not.

Which is fine, but I don't understand how he could agree it was CG at the beginning and then say it might not be now. Where was the evidence he has now when it was needed at the time? A lot of questions have to be asked of the Council surely?

[Epykat]

The only way to get a decision on the law was to go to court.

Seriously, simple question if you can resist temptation to dodge it, what else could they have done?

Go to Court?

[rmolehusband]

Which is fine, but I don't understand how he could agree it was CG at the beginning and then say it might not be now.

You really do have a problem with people changing their minds, don't you? Some people, in particular curious and open minded people, or those not plagued by confirmation bias to the degree you clearly are, are able to continually re-evaluate information and reform opinions, rather being stuck in one, tedious, repetitive, blinkered rut.

A lot of questions have to be asked of the Council surely?

Again, blaming the council on this. What have the council got to do with Andy Wightman's opinion on the CG status of the park?

[rmolehusband]

Seriously, simple question if you can resist temptation to dodge it, what else could they have done?

Go to Court?

Your ability to dodge questions is staggering. Nobody doubts they went to court, do they? You said...

If the Council or the lawyers acting on their behalf had really checked things out properly before they started as they should have done, this would never have happened

The implication is that you feel they didn't check things out properly, which in turn suggests they should have done more (or do what they did more thoroughly, which is in effect doing more). So, I'll ask again

What else could they have done to check things out properly, other than go to court?

[Porty]

And it's taken him years and years to do that? This story has been in the papers over and over and over again, and somebody with such a keen interest in this very subject only decides in the last 2-3 weeks to look into it further?
Epykat wrote:
Which is fine, but I don't understand how he could agree it was CG at the beginning and then say it might not be now.

It was the new evidence wot done it.

Don't forget up until a couple of weeks ago; Andy Wightman, considered that PP was probably Common Good land. And even so, he thought building the school there was the right thing to do.

He formed his initial opinion on the "facts and circumstances" presented to him at that time. And up until a few wekks ago he was still referring to the park as "being gifted"- so he clearly did not have good information. (Have a guess where he got the "gifted" info from?)

That's not the case now. (The clue is NEW evidence)

It is not safe to assume that Andy Wightman has conducted any personal research into the CG status of PP.

[AndyB]

Avril: this comment by Andy Wightman might help:

I am not a sour-faced wee man. I am actually quite bright and cheery. Anyhow, I just want to place on the record that I have never claimed that the land is common good. I merely suggested that it might be back in 2006. I took no part in any campaign for or against and so the positions adopted by the various parties are their responsibility. I do, however have a great interest in this subject and, when I was presented with various pieces of evidence recently, it became clear that there was a legitimate doubt. The fact that I have expressed that doubt is not to support one side or another. I care about common good and it does no-one any good to go around pretending that the question has been settled when it has not.

Which is fine, but I don't understand how he could agree it was CG at the beginning and then say it might not be now. Where was the evidence he has now when it was needed at the time? A lot of questions have to be asked of the Council surely?

Did you read it? He never said it was Common Good. He suggested it as a route to take to try and block the build and PPAG ran with it.
In light of new evidence from the 1890s it appears that the land was bought under statutory powers and not for the Common Good. The money paid for the park did not come out of common good funding. On a map from that time areas of Common Good are clearly definded and Porty Park is not one of them. You must be a little worried by this development. It wasn't a gift to the people. A landowner sold it and got a well paid for it.

[Pal of Porty]

How about this from the 'Save Porty Park, Facebook page:

We are pleased to hear that funding has been announced for St. John's Primary School but we are concerned that Edinburgh Council may now have their eye on Brighton Park, Daisy Park or Rosefield Park as possible sites, given their central locations and Council ownership.

It makes Lord Haw Haw sound like an amateur.

[wangi]

Which is fine, but I don't understand how he could agree it was CG at the beginning and then say it might not be now. Where was the evidence he has now when it was needed at the time? A lot of questions have to be asked of the Council surely?

Because he was presented with a lot less information then - if you do not have the full set of information it's easy to to come to a conclusion (suggest it is common good) which is then changed by further information.

[AndyB]

How about this from the 'Save Porty Park, Facebook page:

We are pleased to hear that funding has been announced for St. John's Primary School but we are concerned that Edinburgh Council may now have their eye on Brighton Park, Daisy Park or Rosefield Park as possible sites, given their central locations and Council ownership.

It makes Lord Haw Haw sound like an amateur.

And what evidence do they have to support this. PHS goes on Porty Park and St Johns can expand into the vacated space. They really are the lowest of the low.

I still find it funny that people have been talking about using Figgy Park for PHS. Saving green space ....don't make me laugh.

[Porty]

On the question of CG status let's not rush to judgment, it is a complex legal matter and none of us really know.

However, the idea/suggestion/proposition that Portobello Park was Common Good land WAS a construct of the early members of PPAG back in 2006. Was it ever raised by anyone prior to this?

I doubt PPAG did much research but they are definitely and solely responsible for the suggestion.

[Betty Windsor]

I doubt PPAG did much research but they are definitely and solely responsible for the suggestion.

They maybe responsible for the suggestion but you are surely not suggesting that they are responsible for the council agreeing with them?

[wangi]

They maybe responsible for the suggestion but you are surely not suggesting that they are responsible for the council agreeing with them?

Of course not.

[Pal of Porty]

They maybe responsible for the suggestion but you are surely not suggesting that they are responsible for the council agreeing with them?

No way but given the evidence that is currently in the public domain, the Council may well be regretting accepting the CG status of the land, whatever their reasons may have been at the time.

[rmolehusband]

...given the evidence that is currently in the public domain, the Council may well be regretting accepting the CG status of the land, whatever their reasons may have been at the time.

In retrospect, they may now take the view that challenging the CG status would have been a better bet that fighting the appropriation issue. Other than that, they have no reason to regret it. They, too, are allowed to change their minds.

[wangi]

[ozbeeuk]

...given the evidence that is currently in the public domain, the Council may well be regretting accepting the CG status of the land, whatever their reasons may have been at the time.

(Not sure I have got the hang of this quoting thing...)

At Friday's public meeting, Andy Wightman said he had suggested to some of those against building on the park, all that time ago, to 'assert that it was common good'. I imagine this was advice given in the knowledge that Common Good law was obscure, ill defined and very much open to interpretation.

The rest is history, really.

I think trying to tie-in a St Johns rebuild with a move to any of the three parks mentioned is sh*t-stirring of the most invidious kind. Plus ca change.

[Porty]

Did you read it? He never said it was Common Good. He suggested it as a route to take to try and block the build and PPAG ran with it.

There's a very real chance all Andy Wightman ever said was along the lines of "It is a complex area of law and difficult to say for definite whether it is CG or not. You (PPAG) tell me it was bequeathed or gifted to the council and to me that suggests there is probability it is CG land"

This whole CG issue could be no more than chinese whispers, started by PPAG, based on a completley false premise. PPAG fed AW the info, possibly believing it was true, and they got the answer they wanted. (sort of)

[Porty]

No way but given the evidence that is currently in the public domain, )

It's the stuff that's not in the public domain, that's most interesting.

[Bob Jefferson]

How about this from the 'Save Porty Park, Facebook page:

We are pleased to hear that funding has been announced for St. John's Primary School but we are concerned that Edinburgh Council may now have their eye on Brighton Park, Daisy Park or Rosefield Park as possible sites, given their central locations and Council ownership.

That really is despicable. A new low, even by their snake-belly standards.

[little miss moffat]

Saveportypark fb page is sooo comical. I read on other sites before that they were deleting posts they did not like and blocked the people who made the posts. I have just spent an hour and a half discussing with one of their members the inaccurate information she was posting on their page. There was no offensive posts from either side (unless you include my original post stating that she was being economical with the truth and the reasons why). Obviously all the administrators were still at work as none of my posts were being deleted. One of their administrators must have signed in at 4.15ish, as all the posts (including their own members post) that were posted in that hour and half have all now disappeared lol. Oh and you guessed it, I have now been blocked from commenting. I don't think I will ever take anyone from PPAG seriously again, after seeing this with my own eyes. They obviously didn't want the general public reading that one of their members were being economical with the truth lol.

[David Robertson]

Many thanks to Porty and Epykat for their welcomes, it is appreciated.

So who thinks the Council will be going back to Court?

[gillian]

How about this from the 'Save Porty Park, Facebook page:

We are pleased to hear that funding has been announced for St. John's Primary School but we are concerned that Edinburgh Council may now have their eye on Brighton Park, Daisy Park or Rosefield Park as possible sites, given their central locations and Council ownership.

It makes Lord Haw Haw sound like an amateur.

I know I have said this before but how, when PPAG people are on the whole (I think) educated, and professional people, how can they make statements like this and expect people to take them seriously. Is it a double/. triple bluff thing that is going on, one that is way too clever for the likes of me?

[little miss moffat]

Hello David and Welcome, I am a new member (of only a few days) myself. Just call me LMM, my name is toooo long lol.

[seashell]

Ah, LMM - you have joined an ever-growing band of those who are barred from the PPAG page.
Any comment that does not chime in with their world-view is, as you have found, deleted and the poster is banned thereafter.

PPAG don't want rational discussion on their page and they don't want to acknowledge that anyone might have a valid point if it does not agree with their own. m isinformation is their standard operating procedure. They take being economical with the actualite to a new level. A very low level indeed.

Welcome to David too! Will the Council go back to court? I sincerely hope so.

And tagging onto the discussions about Andy Wightman - I've met him and he is a very dedicated man, who was called before parliament to give evidence as part of consultations before the passing of the new Land Registration Act earlier this year. He is very knowledgeable on his subject and his latest book "The Poor had No Lawyers" makes very interesting reading.

[seanie]

So who thinks the Council will be going back to Court?

No. They'll evaluate all the options and go for skyhooks and jetpacks.

[Bob Jefferson]

Andy Wightman has taken a lot of stick from PPAG supporters. In their eyes, he has gone from hero of the people to traitor. I think what drives Andy is a sense of fairness and justice. I think he sees the PPAG campaign for what it is. He doesn't have to take sides in this issue, I think we know where his sympathies lie.

[seashell]

Well, Andy certainly has been doing this for a long time, which proves his commitment.
He's basically a land rights campaigner who is not in it for the money, but for justice for the ordinary people.

[Porty]

I'm on record dozens of times, stating the CG status would need to be tested in court.If there's blame to be dished out then we so called PFAnies have to shoulder our share. We had 6 years to challenge it and simply took it at face value. No party will emerge from this looking rosy. Certainly not ppag. Upside is; the school will go ahead.

[seanie]

I think Andy's view is that Common Good could once again be what it was originally; communal assets vital to the well-being of a community, assets that should be managed by a community, in their own interests. So the Common Good should be dynamic, not preserved in aspic by title deeds drawn up in the 19th century.

In that light he won't be happy with Local Authorities using Common Good assets in any way they see fit, or by legal technicalities frustrating things that have community benefit and support. One things that is clear is that the whole area of Common Good is a bit of a mess.

[Bob Jefferson]

I remember being surprised and disappointed at the time, when the Council conceded that the park was CG. But we all fell for the same line, that it didn't matter anyway because of what had happened in Lanarkshire. It's easy to be wise with hindsight. And of course we still don't know for sure, even though all the available evidence seems to point one way.

[little miss moffat]

Ah, LMM - you have joined an ever-growing band of those who are barred from the PPAG page.
Any comment that does not chime in with their world-view is, as you have found, deleted and the poster is banned thereafter.

I certainly did join the banned list - and all because I told the truth!

We need to start a badge of honour list: for those people banned from speaking the truth on PPAG lol.

I had never been on their fb page before, and went on it last night, I saw one of my neighbours (of 15yrs) posting and saying she had school age children at PHS and was happy for them to decant to Castlebrae while they did a rebuild on PHS. I decided to check the ages of her children before responding. So...... this afternoon, being the truthful person that I am, I posted that her children had now left school and she had in fact no school age children. My neighbour and I then posted various posts, where she tried to wriggle out of the situation she found herself in. This continued for an hour and a half. Then obviously the administrators of the site arrived home from work and promptly deleted all the posts and barred me, along with 2 other parents who had also commented on the posts.

That was my first contact with PPAG, and I hope to have no further contact with them. I now consider their group to condone blatant lies and hide the evidence (by deleting my posts exposing their lies).
PPAG: Portobello Park Action Group, more like Pathetic People Against Goodness.