Baileyfield Site

[wangi]

They even deleted the official notification from PHS requesting them to stop using the crest.

PHS need to use this page to report the misused logo: http://www.facebook.com/help/contact/208282075858952

[Bob0131]

I suspect there is still room for certain individuals to sink even lower still. However creating insulting comedy false identities to falsify support is close to the bottom of the barrel.

[little miss moffat]

Thank you for your response Franck. As you say: "by the time a new St. John's is built my second child will join the first at Holyrood". Therefore, you wouldn't personally be overly concerned about it's location, I am sure you can appreciate that many other parents (whose children will attend the new school) may well be very concerned about it's location.

[little miss moffat]

Came across this post on the BIOB site, don't think it will last long there:

Hello BIOB, so far I haven't contributed to this debate, although I've been following it for a long time. However, if there *is* a case to be made for building on Baileyfield you seem to be doing your level best to make sure it isn't taken seriously, so I thought it was time to offer some advice:

1. Stop being silly about the consultations. Do you *seriously* believe that the reason for the polls coming out the way they did has anything to do with data protection? Or that duplicate responses (carefully dealt with, incidentally, if you read the report) could have biased the results that far? Honestly? Perhaps you could explain to the uninitiated how the fact that some responses were stored on Google's servers (in Dublin for the EU, actually) affected the outcome. I'd be very interested to hear what the ICO make of your complaint; and interested to know how *you* think such a complaint will further your stated cause of getting a new school built as soon as possible. You're on far safer ground pointing out that the consultations only included parents from PHS and its feeder schools, although perhaps you should bear in mind that *that's what the council asked for*, and they'll therefore presumably be aware that the opinions of some sections of the community won't be represented in the consultations so far; doubtless there will be more. If you seriously believe that the will of current and future PHS parents is massively different from the will of the community-at-large then the best thing to do is to commission your own consultation at your earliest opportunity, to set the record straight. I don't think you'd be particularly surprised, however, to find a majority in favour of building on the park, and I suspect that this is what is staying your hand(s). And, of course, if you do run your own survey, everyone will be watching you like hawks to ensure that you comply with the DPA and don't end up with a biased sample -- thanks for the heads-up

2. Remove the crest already. I have no idea who you are, but some of your responses on this matter make me think you're letting emotions get the better of you. You're damaging your credibility by disrespecting the will of the school you're so eager to rebuild, and what exactly are you gaining?

3. Tell us who you are. Hiding behind anonymity weakens your position. If there really is a "BIOB HQ" which has "meetings", then tell us who you *all* are. Otherwise, you come across as cowardly compared to the many (on both sides of the argument) who are preapred to stick their necks out and put their names to their opinions. The pamphlet you kindly put through my door went straight in the bin -- why should I care about the opinions of anonymous petitioners, with unknown agendas?

Like many others who have joined this debate before me, I'm not anonymous; you can look me up (and, if you dig deep enough, find out that I know a thing or two about internet surveys etc.). For full disclosure I have a son who isn't (yet) in primary school, so I didn't contribute to any of the consultations (although I do believe that the park is by far the best option)[*]

[*] to save anyone making the predictable "well it's not legally available" reply: After the first judgement, the park *was* legally available. PPAG considered their options and decided to appeal the decision. Currently it's *not* legally available. Supporters of building on the park (including the council) have considered their options and have decided that attempting a specific amendment of the law is the appropriate course of action. Why is it OK for PPAG to take things further when they don't like an outcome, but not for others?

[Franck]

Thank you for your response Franck. As you say: "by the time a new St. John's is built my second child will join the first at Holyrood". Therefore, you wouldn't personally be overly concerned about it's location, I am sure you can appreciate that many other parents (whose children will attend the new school) may well be very concerned about it's location.

To dismiss my suggestion on those grounds is poor,any further Franck jnr's that might be fortunate enough to come along will be going to St.Johns and I'm very interested in the ongoing developments of St.Johns...who knows, my lad is only in P3, so it might just benefit him.

The site has merits for a primary school, there's houses and a small cul de sac between the site and HLR, so not an issue for wayward kids, the other side is Porty High Street, not exactly any different to the road the school currently sits on.

I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but it is a solution, and the myopic view of those determined to build on the park and the park alone is pretty sad.

[little miss moffat]

Please accept my apologies Franck, it was not my intention for my post to appear dismissive, but after reading your comments and re-reading my post I accept that it could be taken that way. The point that I was trying to make was that while you would not be overly concerned re the Baileyfield site, there may well be other parents who were.

[Franck]

Please accept my apologies Franck, it was not my intention for my post to appear dismissive, but after reading your comments and re-reading my post I accept that it could be taken that way. The point that I was trying to make was that while you would not be overly concerned re the Baileyfield site, there may well be other parents who were.

No worries.Parents will have concerns about moving the school to any alternate location, which is understandable.I think those concerns could be addressed,though.

anyway, it's not going to happen, as it will cost too much.