New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[Bob Jefferson]

Cheers Charlie, that's exactly the type of viewpoint I was looking for and I hope it will encourage others to post. And I'm right behind you on the dogs issue. Though personally I blame the owners. But that's another thread for another day.

[Bob Jefferson]

You imagine you are the only ones who can see both sides of the argument.

I didn't say that. I'm happy to admit that I'm biased towards building the school on Portobello Park. I hear the other side of the argument, but it doesn't make much sense to me. I think it's flawed, naive and, in the final analysis, simply wrong.

[Porty]

Welcome Charlie.

Don't know where to start, you raise a quite a few issus, all very reasonable and in no way offensive.

The topic has to do with the judicial review so maybe best to stick with that for now. I agree that PPAG have the right to challenge the matter in court, they could have done it three years ago, without disruption to the school timeline. A lot of people are angry at that and a few hundred kids will be deprived of at least some time in a new school as a result. I accept that there are quite a few people who find that little or no consequence. Like you I hope PPAG fail. It would be fitting if it were due to delay, it would be more gratifying if the legal advice,paid for by the council, in 2008 were proved correct.

I don't think its fair to say that the council "took it as read" . They doled out a substantial amount of cash to both senior and junior counsel and then followed their advice. So they backed themselves and their legal advisers, it wasn't a given.

Activists- regardless of the merits of previous campaigns, this time around the activists have been acting against the will of the majority of local people and the city as a whole. As demonstrated by responses to the planning application and the votes of our elected councillors.

The activists have conducted a despicable and irresponsible campaign fueled by lies, falsehoods and misrepresentations- against what? Not a superstore or waste transfer depot its a new community school. Previoulsy they could, perhaps justifiably, claim to be "community activists"- they helped galvanise the community who were broadly against the proposals and let us not forget the council were too. This time around the activists have been recruited by a NIMBY hardcore. They are fighting the council AND the vast majority of the city. They've brought nothing positive to this party.

[Porty]

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.

Its clear that rather than rely on consultations, pre planning process, independent consultants, public comment and so on. You believe that we, and the council, should base our policy on private conversations you have with anonymous (to us) friends supported by the views of other people who you suspect may exist. Is that what you want?

How much credibility does this friend of yours have? He or she is pro-school on the park but appears to have known nothing about it. All of a sudden he or she is dismayed. That may be the case, if their sole source of information was you then the dismay is not worth the paper its not written on.

Betty - I promise i will stop ridiculing you the instant you stop being ridiculous.

I know you don't do answers Betty but please indulge me just once; is dismayed of Duddingston still pro-school?

[seanie]

A school on the park supporter friend of mine was dismayed to find out last week the park is common good land.

Any other side effects from their coma for the past three years?

[Epykat]

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

Can't think of a warmer welcome really - people will just be flocking to put their opinions across.

[seanie]

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.

That's a pretty much textbook example of you not seeing both sides of the argument.

Because the principal arguments in favour of the school on the park aren't based on the idea that there's no 'viable alternative', simply that it's the best of the limited options. It's viable to rebuild on site, for several million pounds extra, at considerable disruption, and with a poorer school campus at the end due to the ridiculously small site.

As an option it's viable.

But also crap.

[Porty]

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

Can't think of a warmer welcome really - people will just be flocking to put their opinions across.

Its four minutes past midnight!

[wangi]

Dissenting voices are not well tolerated on this forum.

Excuse me? You will find "dissenting voices" are free to air their views here, along with anyone else. Unlike the PPAG website and Save Porty Park Facebook page which are ruthlessly culled of anything not "on message".

[Chas]

But is the current plan more right than wrong? Yes, I think so....

[Chas]

[Because the principal arguments in favour of the school on the park aren't based on the idea that there's no 'viable alternative', simply that it's the best of the limited options. It's viable to rebuild on site, for several million pounds extra, at considerable disruption, and with a poorer school campus at the end due to the ridiculously small site.

As an option it's viable.

But also crap.

[Pal of Porty]

Can't think of a warmer welcome really - people will just be flocking to put their opinions across.

Oh ....I don't think you scare too many people off Epy!

[Paxetamor]

I know this may sound controversial, especially to the Messrs Bombastic, but I love the park. When you step inside it can give you a sense of peace, away from the traffic even though it's just feet away. In my(vast)experience it doesn't have a major problem with dog shit. It seems that everyone who is for building on the park wants to paint it as a piece of wasteland that nobody cares about unless you live in Park Avenue or Milton Road. It is not the case.

[Bob Jefferson]

May I enquire how often you visit the.park. and what you do while you are there? Do you walk a dog, for example? Or jog?

[Paxetamor]

I walked my dog there, usually twice a day, for years until they dug it up for their findings. I don't walk him there any more because the ground is so uneven I'm afraid he'll break something. The football pitches look like they've had the same treatment and I would suspect that they are now unplayable. How often do you go there?

[Porty]

. When you step inside it can give you a sense of peace, away from the traffic even though it's just feet away.

Agreed

. In my(vast)experience it doesn't have a major problem with dog shit. It seems that everyone who is for building on the park wants to paint it as a piece of wasteland that nobody cares about unless you live in Park Avenue or Milton Road. It is not the case.

I bow to your experience. i don't consider the park to be wasteland but it is little used and of poor quality. It will no longer be so peaceful but in most other aspects it will be improved.

I visited recently, to observe the PPAG run, I thought the pitches were now unavailable for hire, am i mistaken.

[Paxetamor]

I would think that they are unavailable because they have been rendered unplayable by the digs. I could be wrong.

[Porty]

I'm sure you are right.

[Paxetamor]

As for being little-used, there are maybe 4 benches, all situated at the Milton Road side with none at the Golf Course side. I'm sure there would be some Health & Safety nonsense about this but I have never been close to being hit by a stray ball and with the Millennium whatsitsname there I think it would be extremely unlikely. If you compare the amount of benches there to other parks in Portobello there is a huge discrepancy. I think this accounts for it's lack of use by anyone apart from dog walkers and joggers.

[Betty Windsor]

Dissenting voices are not well tolerated on this forum.

Excuse me? You will find "dissenting voices" are free to air their views here, along with anyone else. Unlike the PPAG website and Save Porty Park Facebook page which are ruthlessly culled of anything not "on message".

I was barred from the Save Porty Park Watch FB by Seanie for disagreeing.

[seanie]

No. You were barred for a post that was gratuitously insulting.

[wangi]

Dissenting voices are not well tolerated on this forum.

Excuse me? You will find "dissenting voices" are free to air their views here, along with anyone else. Unlike the PPAG website and Save Porty Park Facebook page which are ruthlessly culled of anything not "on message".

I was barred from the Save Porty Park Watch FB by Seanie for disagreeing.

So, what are you expecting Talk Porty to do about that? You said "this forum".

[Betty Windsor]

No. You were barred for a post that was gratuitously insulting.

What was that exactly" I do not remember being insulting never mind gratuitously and even if I did why not just remove the offending statement? You removed every post "accidently" and me too.
Wangi I don't expect Talkporty to do anything i just felt that your comment was a bit one sided.

[Porty]

As for being little-used, there are maybe 4 benches.......... If you compare the amount of benches there to other parks in Portobello there is a huge discrepancy. I think this accounts for it's lack of use by anyone apart from dog walkers and joggers.

There's going to be a lot more sittung around in the new park!

[wangi]

I think this accounts for it's lack of use by anyone apart from dog walkers and joggers.

Posted this elsewhere:

I don't think it's productive or in good taste to rubbish Portobello Park. It's the only realistic site for a new PHS, but in an ideal world there would be another. With funding to upgrade pitches & paths Portobello Park would be excellent. As-is it's ok and is used less than it could be due to lack of investment in the past.

[seanie]

No. You were barred for a post that was gratuitously insulting.

What was that exactly" I do not remember being insulting never mind gratuitously and even if I did why not just remove the offending statement? You removed every post "accidently" and me too.
Wangi I don't expect Talkporty to do anything i just felt that your comment was a bit one sided.

When trying to remove a comment, the options offered were 'delete this comment' or 'delete this comment and ban user'. The banning was entirely intentional, the deleting of all your posts was not. Not that some of them weren't insulting too mind, but it was just the one post that I felt went too far.

[Bob Jefferson]

How often do you go there?

I never go there, simply because there are other, much nicer parks nearby. Figgate Park is beautiful - a park that is genuinely loved and cared for by local people, and a great asset to the city. Rosefield Park is charming and well-used. And then we have Brighton Park, Abercorn Park, Joppa Quarry Park. I just can't see a reason to go to Portobello Park. I went there once years ago to watch my son play football and a few times more recently, just to check it out. There was a lot of dog poo along the informal path network, clear evidence that a number of dog-owners do not consider it necessary to scoop, and on the warm day the last time I visited, it made for a very unpleasant walk. I'm not suggesting that this problem is unique to Portobello Park by the way. I'm sure you are a responsible dog-owner but sadly there are many who just don't seem to care.

I do drive past it though on a fairly regular basis and the impression I have formed is that very people use it apart from local dog-owners. This is borne out by the usage survey carried out by the Council. I don't think installing more benches would make any difference. The truth is I love parks but I'm prepared to sacrifice this one in order to build a much-needed new school for local children.

[Betty Windsor]

No. You were barred for a post that was gratuitously insulting.

What was that exactly" I do not remember being insulting never mind gratuitously and even if I did why not just remove the offending statement? You removed every post "accidently" and me too.
Wangi I don't expect Talkporty to do anything i just felt that your comment was a bit one sided.

When trying to remove a comment, the options offered were 'delete this comment' or 'delete this comment and ban user'. The banning was entirely intentional, the deleting of all your posts was not. Not that some of them weren't insulting too mind, but it was just the one post that I felt went too far.

I refute this 100%. Please pm me with your evidence of my insulting remarks.

[seanie]

Refute? How exactly?

[Betty Windsor]

Refute? How exactly?

-fut·ed, -fut·ing, -futes.

1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.

2 works for me. On reflection deny would maybe have been a better choice of words.

Also re coma comment you made about my friend who was not aware the park was common good land-she is a busy mother of two with a full time job whose kids do not go to Towerbank. You don't seem to have an equivalent in the other primaries in the catchment keeping people informed.

[Porty]

Pity your friend didnt have a PPAG friend to keep her in the know, these last five years or so.

Maybe she's known all along but she's in refutal?

Is the busy mother of two still pro school on the park?

[seanie]

Mmmmm...

Usage: The use of refute to mean deny is thought by many people to be incorrect

[seanie]

Also re coma comment you made about my friend who was not aware the park was common good land-she is a busy mother of two with a full time job whose kids do not go to Towerbank.

Fair enough. Most people lead busy lives and can't possibly be expected to follow the details of every issue that may affect their lives. And since the Common Good issue was raised, vocally, about 6 years ago and has been a central pillar of the arguments against the school ever since, your friend clearly hasn't been able to follow the issue closely. As to her dismay on discovering the land was Common Good, why was she dismayed?

[Betty Windsor]

Also re coma comment you made about my friend who was not aware the park was common good land-she is a busy mother of two with a full time job whose kids do not go to Towerbank.

Fair enough. Most people lead busy lives and can't possibly be expected to follow the details of every issue that may affect their lives. And since the Common Good issue was raised, vocally, about 6 years ago and has been a central pillar of the arguments against the school ever since, your friend clearly hasn't been able to follow the issue closely. As to her dismay on discovering the land was Common Good, why was she dismayed?

She was dismayed because she has first hand knowledge of common good land disputes and is keen for her children to go to the new school.
Porty - The school on the park issue is not one that we discuss normally as we agreed some years ago to agree to disagree. The subject only came up because of the court case.

[Paxetamor]

In response to BJ's post. You choose to go to other parks. It's not that I haven't been to any of them, I know exactly what they're like. Brighton Park, in my opinion, is a disgrace dogshitwise. This is where our children have their sports day. I choose to go to Portobello Park.

How long does it take you to drive past? Unless you're sitting in the numerous traffic jams, which are bad enough just now, you should really be keeping your eyes on the road. You could knock over a child.