New Schools Proposal - The Wilder Issues

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Nov 2006, 14:54

That balance sheet thing is well dodgy.

Not that it's not a reflection of fact - it is - but that it smacks of triumphalism, at least to me. Fine in an individual post - we've all got used to Porty's style, which has become increasingly bombastic recently - eg his "Pot & Kettle" post - but a custom-ordered locked sticky?

I wouldn't go outright and say it was targeted at PPAG because I have no proof of what was in the author's head - so to say that it was intended to make PPAG look small, or have fun with calling them "Liabilities", would require proof of intent, which is impossible. And you have to take the author's word on it unless you want to call him a liar.

Someone could say it was a completely deniable slur you can snigger at whilst remaining content that you can argue you were just reporting the facts.

I knew Porty was co-opted as a community rep (from, not for!) but I didn't know he was a co-opted moderator - did none of you look at that and think that the combination of him getting locked sticky de facto propaganda whilst Dave Connelly is suspended for breaking no rules might look like things are biased?

I'm only worried for the outward impression a visitor might get - there's no way I'm accusing the mods of bias or Porty of concocting propaganda. Nor do I want to complain other than this gripe.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 23 Nov 2006, 15:10

The list is indeed a statement of fact and it was a request that appeared reasonable and which I found difficult to deny. However, on reflection I would agree that the point that Porty is making does not require a locked sticky. Gripe accepted in this instance.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 23 Nov 2006, 15:11

In fairness I had decided there was no way it merited locking or a sticky, so had not complied wiht the request, but we can't consult each other on every decision so clearly Bob felt differently to me.

BB

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 23 Nov 2006, 15:16

Thanks Bob & BB.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Nov 2006, 16:34

Dadaist wrote:
I wouldn't go outright and say it was targeted at PPAG because I have no proof of what was in the author's head - so to say that it was intended to make PPAG look small, or have fun with calling them "Liabilities", would require proof of intent, which is impossible. And you have to take the author's word on it unless you want to call him a liar.

You could ask the author why he chose to express the data as a balance sheet. And avoided making any comment or opinion?

I have no problem being unlocked or merged and this thread does not require a sticky.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 23 Nov 2006, 17:57

I've been at work and off line all day. Didn't see it until now.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Nov 2006, 18:01

Marya wrote:I've been at work and off line all day. Didn't see it until now.

And you would have stuck up for me with a double sticky and an enigma lock?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 23 Nov 2006, 18:11

Allegedly

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 23 Nov 2006, 18:29

Mary Mackenzie- petitioner to the Scottish Executive November 14th 2006 wrote: Moving into a save-the-planet mode,

Think she meant different .

Mary Mackenzie- petitioner to the Scottish Executive November 14th 2006 wrote: I would say that playing fields, and even golf courses, which are needed for the young and the obese, .

I knew Pringles were bad for you but I didn't realise that Golf made one obese.

Mary Mackenzie- petitioner to the Scottish Executive wrote: may be fast disappearing to developers, while parks and cared-for open spaces, which are needed as lungs for cities and as walking spaces for everyone, also disappear to developers. Both those types of place are probably part of the common good , but they are not recorded as such.

Do they wear a uniform?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 24 Nov 2006, 14:15

I agree that it should not have been a sticky, locked thing - I was very surprised to see it had been given such status. Didn't realise a list of fact was triumphalist though, especially when a decision has not even been made yet!

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Nov 2006, 14:34

Dadaist wrote: I wouldn't go outright and say it was targeted at PPAG because I have no proof of what was in the author's head - so to say that it was intended to make PPAG look small, or have fun with calling them "Liabilities", would require proof of intent, which is impossible. And you have to take the author's word on it unless you want to call him a liar.

The balance sheet is not targeted at PPAG. It is not a "result" there are several groups or indivduals who have yet to declare. They could be either Assets or Liabilities. As I say, its not a result andI can assure you I am not triumpahilst about Dec 21st. I'm not even quietly confident, as its politics not science. If the decison goes the way of the common good, I will still not be triumphant as there's nothing to be triumphal about. All we* are asking for are some basic entitlements for Portobello's children. Are you triumphant when you have your tea or switch your lights on?

The balance sheet is a simple and easy snap-shot of where its at and as you concede it is a "relection of fact" . I think it is very impactful and I hope you agree that its more evidential than a vague "loads more people support the park than building on the park" type statement, particularly when relating to an educational debate.

If you felt more comfortable I could re-title the Balance sheet "No School in Portobello Park- The Balance Sheet" then move PPAG into Assets and everyone else into Liabilities would that make you happier?

(* we- is people who want decent schools on the park)

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Nov 2006, 15:59

No. I'd prefer to see a list of who has declared for which option.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Nov 2006, 17:27

Fair enough.

What about "A School in A Park -The Balance Sheet" then we could move PPAG into Assets with everyone else?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Nov 2006, 20:46

No. That wouldn't be as useful to me as one which showed who had come out for which option.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Nov 2006, 13:33

Dadaist wrote:No. That wouldn't be as useful to me as one which showed who had come out for which option.

Oops sorry, when you say useful, tell me what are you going to use the balance sheet for and I will tailor it accordingly.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Nov 2006, 13:42

Posts moved from 'Schools' thread. Can we keep this discussion on this thread please?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Nov 2006, 13:53

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:No. That wouldn't be as useful to me as one which showed who had come out for which option.
Oops sorry, when you say useful, tell me what are you going to use the balance sheet for and I will tailor it accordingly.

I'd rather see a plain list with just the 3 options as headings, and under each who declared for it.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Nov 2006, 14:00

Ok got you. What are you going to use it for?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Nov 2006, 18:57

Porty wrote:Ok got you. What are you going to use it for?

I hadn't planned to use it for anything. I only suggested it because you asked if swapping the assets & liabilities would make me happier, so I tried to think of how I would present the information of who declared for what if I were preparing it for general viewing.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 25 Nov 2006, 19:03

Ok. Its just when you said this. I thought you had a purpose. My bad.

Dadaist wrote:No. That wouldn't be as useful to me as one which showed who had come out for which option.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Nov 2006, 19:31

Porty wrote:Ok. Its just when you said this. I thought you had a purpose. My bad.

Dadaist wrote:No. That wouldn't be as useful to me as one which showed who had come out for which option.

Having said all this though - the split amongst pro-park bodies in terms of who came out for B and who said C - that would be interesting.

But my point at the start was that I'd rather history was written in a neutral manner, not presented (not that I'm saying you did, rather the way it was laid out could have given the impression) as propaganda.

Facts, of course, aren't propaganda to start out with. But which are selected (not in this example cos it looks like you got everyone - is the community council in there?) can be a tactic - as are their presentation and who is doing the presenting.

Having a snapshot of who has come out for which option is important, and part of our local history. In the future, someone picking through this trying to work out who was who and what was what would find this list useful to their research - but in the current form and with the current author I would argue that they would need some explanatory footnotes too.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Nov 2006, 14:59

Dadaist wrote: - but in the current form and with the current author I would argue that they would need some explanatory footnotes too.

I had footnotes but I took them out as I felt they were pro-park spin. I just kept it factual without comment. Lots of people struggle with this, even you from time to time. Although you are much more adept at attempted author assasination withot risking censure.

I don't have enuogh detail on Towerbank to say what options they went for. PHS schoolboard went for C but would also accept B.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Nov 2006, 15:32

I think it would be interesting to see a plain list of who went for which option.

Did the community council back an option?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 Nov 2006, 16:10

I don't think the Community Council took an official view as it was recognised that members hold a variety of opinion on the matter.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 26 Nov 2006, 16:18

Some members of the CC took a tour of the school. There was supposed to be a written report but I'm not sure if it was ever prepared. As Bob said the CC did not take a view, in fact the new school has not been discussed in any great detail and not been an agenda item for months.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Nov 2006, 18:33

I'm surprised by that - I had thought that they were one of the ports of call of the whole consultation business.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 26 Nov 2006, 22:48

They're statutory consultees on planning appplications but under this consulatation they'd have no special standing. If the communiy is divided on the issue then it's probably appropriate that the Community Council doesn't take a position. The role of Community Councils is to express the views of their community, not to exercise their own judgement.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 28 Nov 2006, 23:12

I've been pondering over a part of the PPAG Submission that struck me;

Is the general consultation restricted to only those living in the catchment area? How will this be proved? Who is the wider community?

That's an interesting question.

Who is the wider community?

Does it include people in Leicestershire?

Does it include American golfers?

How about their grannies, aunties, etc etc?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Nov 2006, 23:45

It seems to extend to people in Yorkshire plus their friends and family of course.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Nov 2006, 23:58

I wonder how many of these 'dudes' even know where Portobello is?

Brazil?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Nov 2006, 10:03

I remember in the early days of the PFANS/pro-plan online petition pointing out multiple signatories from households and families, and was curtly reminded that these individuals were distinct entities with opinions of their own.

Sauce for the goose.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Nov 2006, 11:40

Dadaist wrote:I remember in the early days of the PFANS/pro-plan online petition pointing out multiple signatories from households and families, and was curtly reminded that these individuals were distinct entities with opinions of their own.
Sauce for the goose.

You are quite correct, this also applies to people from different continents who have no idea where either Portobello Park or Figgate Park

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 29 Nov 2006, 11:50

I've not said anything about countries and continents as far as I can remember - I'm just reacting to reading what seanie and Bob have had to say about "friends and family" and "grannies, aunties etc".

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 29 Nov 2006, 12:23

Dadaist wrote:I've not said anything about countries and continents as far as I can remember - I'm just reacting to reading what seanie and Bob have had to say about "friends and family" and "grannies, aunties etc".

I appreciate that but Bob and Seanie's comments related to the friends,families aunties etc post by Portygreenkeeper on the American Golfers site, I'm sure Bob ad Seanie didn't seek to devalue the views of friends and faimily etc here in Portobello. Its just that you took it out of context and gave it a whole ne connotation.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 29 Nov 2006, 12:40

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:I remember in the early days of the PFANS/pro-plan online petition pointing out multiple signatories from households and families, and was curtly reminded that these individuals were distinct entities with opinions of their own.
Sauce for the goose.
You are quite correct, this also applies to people from different continents who have no idea where either Portobello Park or Figgate Park

I'm not sure where this newly invented "Portobello Park" is either

. As long as I've been here we've never had a "Portobello Park" - the Council just made it up.