New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 21:54

bellybabe wrote:Not me, mate. I would never dream of saying the council are completely above board!!!

Me neither, but you have to be careful what you say these days - not only do you have to justify continued use of a resource you didn't think had those sort of strings attached, but simply living on a certain street gives you an automatic label which is yours to disprove - so in the sort of atmosphere where people who have done nothing are suddenly thrust into the spotlight, an overt act must also be subject to an increased level of attention - at least in the minds of those who seek to counter those who do not hold their own views.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Mar 2006, 21:57

Dadaist wrote:We're straying into legalistic territory here though and there's no way that I would make, nor ask you to make, specific allegations of impropriety - especially with an Edinburgh paper like the Evening News watching - I doubt if a Glasgow paper like the Evening Times is a that bothered!

My west of Scotland roots betray me.

But the point of my â€œscaremongeringâ€

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 21:58

Mate of Marya wrote:It is not our councillors we need to worry about being above board.

Wow, I thought *I* was an idealist. Do you think all politicians are above board?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Mar 2006, 22:01

People are demanding independent analysis of alternative sites and detailed justification etc. If that's what is required to convince people that there is no other solution then I'm all in favour of this. Some people, of course, will never be convinced of the Golf Course proposal. Some people still believe that re-furbishing the existing school is an option and aren't really interested in the problems a decant would involve. Some can't accept or won't accept that the millions of pounds required to re-build the school mean that land development is inevitable. For some, saving 'green space' is an end in itself regardless of the consequences.

Some options won't have been examined in any depth because they are just non-starters for one reason or another. The council hasn't produced detailed reports, not because they are hiding them, but simply because they don't exist. They will be wriiten now of course. Every option you can imagine will be analysed to death but I'm willing to bet that all of this effort will simply confirm what we already know.

Call it a mantra if you wish, but if you want decent schools for the 21st century with their own playing fields in place within the next 10 years...

OK, let's not prejudge things. I'll wait for the reports.

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 10 Mar 2006, 22:03

The "increased level of attention" is due to the fact "someone" premeditated the change of Agenda and audience at a specific meeting. The general public or those staying in a certain area are not the guilty party if they attended the meeting with the innocence of it being a public meeting. The dishonest person is the one who changed the Agenda !

Green Dream · Post by **Green Dream** » 10 Mar 2006, 22:09

There is no point in discussing the relocation of the golf course before it has even been decided if the golf course and park are the only option. That's putting the cart before the horse in my book.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Mar 2006, 22:17

seanie wrote:sympathy for golfers will have been suddenly been re-evaluated.

seanie, you're playing a clever game from your pro-school viewpoint and I think I liked it better when you just gave us numbers!

So fence-sitting has a cost, does it? I can see how lawyers exist who come up with deals whose benefits shrink over time, and how out of court settlements are made through intimidation and fear - even if they exploit avarice - there is still an element of tyranny in offering something with the vague threat that if it is not taken today, it may not be there tomorrow.

You have made it look (in a very intelligent way) as though the most attractive choice is to go with this plan - that's fine. But whilst your analysis of everything and everyone has been impeccable, and I congratulate you on the amount of time and information you've given us - there's something missing - any criticism of CEC.

They are the ones who got us into this, and before you start on people you describe as sitting on the fence - why not apply your analytical skill to CEC?

You must have had some thoughts other than "these are our elected representatives and if people don't like them, they should prove their allegations or vote them out" surely ?

- respectfully -

Green Dream · Post by **Green Dream** » 10 Mar 2006, 22:20

Recently I asked for a FOI request from The City of Edinburgh Council on alternative options looked at as an alternative to building on 2/3rds of Portobello Park (and obliterating the golf course).
I received a response stating that there had only been strategic meetings on this subject with no minutes of the meetings. What an excuse that is! There was also a standard letter attached that I have already seen on this website saying only 2 alternatives had been considered. The Pitz and Holyrood. Is anyone else appalled by this lack of transparency? 2 options is hardly making an effort to find an alternative solution and a few lines explaining the rejection is hardly conclusive! I would hope that the Council could look into this in more detail as it is apparent there are many people including parents of children at Portobello High School that object to using this community park for the School buildings and housing. I am sure everyone wants a new school for our community but not to the detriment of loosing green space.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Mar 2006, 22:23

Dadaist said:

there's something missing - any criticism of CEC.

You can blame whoever you like - the Council, the Scottish Exec, successive governments but, as Andrew Fraser (Chair of PHS School Board) said the other night, we are where we are.

edit - added quote to clarify what I was responding to.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Mar 2006, 23:21

Dadaist wrote:So fence-sitting has a cost, does it?

Well I think it can. And I've explained why. If you think not then do share.

They are the ones who got us into this, and before you start on people you describe as sitting on the fence - why not apply your analytical skill to CEC?

Because, at this present juncture, I don't see the relevance.

I'll say it again.

If people want to ignore or reject these proposals, before weâ€™re even certain what they are, then go ahead. But if they donâ€™t come up with a realistic alternative, which I certainly havenâ€™t seen yet, then their actions now may come back later to bite them on the bum.

If you all want to spend your time scrutinising who's been invited to go to which meeting and who's suffered the appaling accusation of nimbyism and just what dreadful lying incompetent swines the council are then go ahead.

It's all utterley irrelevant at the fundamental issue.

kittywink · Post by **kittywink** » 10 Mar 2006, 23:49

kittywink wrote:I know....I don't post very often and now... here I am with a second post in less than 2 minutes! Residents in the Golf Course vicinity have had leaflets hand-delivered urging them to attend the meeting at Portobello High School organised by the School Board. This meeting is intended solely for parents of children currently attending PHS( there is a tear-off slip on the invite which was posted along with the school newsletter). Does anyone know anything about this?

Sorry, I have obviously got this wrong. please read the following quote:I have a collegue at work who lives in Duddingston Road South who received a
letter about this meeting. Not an official one from the school (with tear
off slip) but from someone who had made up inviting people to come in
support of the school proposals. I thought the meeting was just for parents
of kids at the school but she doesn't have kids there. I think someone has
done this on pupose to get more support by selectivly posting them through
the doors of people near the school but not near the park as I haven't got
one (or anyone else facing the park)

I now have to say that I have serious concerns about this whole process and the repercussions from the lack of information this community has received from its elected representatives. This lack of information has culminated into the dividing of a previously united community into a seemingly "'yes' and 'no' to a new PHS camp" mentality.Nothing but real facts and representational accountability will sort it, I think -Is it only me that thinks along these lines?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Mar 2006, 00:13

Kittywink, I can only repeat that the meeting on the 16th is solely for parents with children at PHS. No-one else will be admitted entry. The meeting will, I understand, be chaired by Andrew Fraser, chair of the school board. He will not be trying to sell the proposal but simply stating the facts of the situation. It will be an opportunity for parents to find out more about the proposal and to voice any concerns they may have.

I suggest, respectfully, that before anyone else jumps to conclusions that you establish the facts behind this story. It all sounds a bit far-fetched to me.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 11 Mar 2006, 00:55

seanie wrote:
Dadaist wrote:So fence-sitting has a cost, does it?
Well I think it can. And I've explained why. If you think not then do share.
They are the ones who got us into this, and before you start on people you describe as sitting on the fence - why not apply your analytical skill to CEC?

Because, at this present juncture, I don't see the relevance.

So it's not because you haven't thought it, but because you don't see the relevance?

I'll say it again.

If people want to ignore or reject these proposals, before weâ€™re even certain what they are, then go ahead. But if they donâ€™t come up with a realistic alternative, which I certainly havenâ€™t seen yet, then their actions now may come back later to bite them on the bum.

If you all want to spend your time scrutinising who's been invited to go to which meeting and who's suffered the appaling accusation of nimbyism and just what dreadful lying incompetent swines the council are then go ahead.

It's all utterley irrelevant at the fundamental issue.

Well, according to you this is the home of irrelevance, so do share!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 11 Mar 2006, 01:00

I now have to say that I have serious concerns about this whole process and the repercussions from the lack of information this community has received from its elected representatives. This lack of information has culminated into the dividing of a previously united community into a seemingly "'yes' and 'no' to a new PHS camp" mentality.Nothing but real facts and representational accountability will sort it, I think -Is it only me that thinks along these lines?

I can confirm there are at least 2 of us.

It's not just "yes" and "no" camps now, though - there's your fence-sitters too!

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 11 Mar 2006, 01:33

Dadaist wrote:
I now have to say that I have serious concerns about this whole process and the repercussions from the lack of information this community has received from its elected representatives. This lack of information has culminated into the dividing of a previously united community into a seemingly "'yes' and 'no' to a new PHS camp" mentality.Nothing but real facts and representational accountability will sort it, I think -Is it only me that thinks along these lines?
I can confirm there are at least 2 of us.

It's not just "yes" and "no" camps now, though - there's your fence-sitters too![/quote

]

+ another = 3

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 11 Mar 2006, 10:20

Thanks for that, Gemini. Believe it or not, I'm still very marginally pro-school, mainly because there doesn't seem to be any counter to Porty/seanie's valid point that there just isn't an alternative.

To one (extreme) extent, discussion around the subject is irrelevant, but I celebrate gossip and tittle-tattle if only because it means I'm allowed to discuss real problems with recourse to emotive language, analogy, simile, etc etc - rather than the Cyberman approach we see from those who would like to assimilate (deliberate mixed sci-fi metaphor) the golf course into the rest of urbania.

Talking of which - I recommend the following recording of a Cyberman from the Dr Who episode "Earthshock" :

http://www.dwwa.net/dr5/Earthshock/Irelevnt.wav

kathlake · Post by **kathlake** » 11 Mar 2006, 18:46

Thankyou seanie for answering my last question I have another!
Apparently ppp has been replaced by LIFT which stands for Local Improvement Finance Trusts. The first phase of lift appears to be earmarked for health projects, but there is an initiative related to lift called Building better schools. Is there any chance of this helping with our FUNDING PROBLEM ??????

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 12 Mar 2006, 00:37

Dadaist wrote:So it's not because you haven't thought it, but because you don't see the relevance?

To the fundamental issue? No. As Iâ€™ve already said.

Explain to me why it is.

The â€œtheyâ€

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 12 Mar 2006, 01:14

seanie wrote:How about explaining to me why fence-sitting has no effect?

Seanie, you don't undertsand. Fence sitting is good. Look at the start of the 2nd world war. Ignoring reality is a gift.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 12 Mar 2006, 01:18

kathlake wrote:Thankyou seanie for answering my last question I have another!
Apparently ppp has been replaced by LIFT which stands for Local Improvement Finance Trusts. The first phase of lift appears to be earmarked for health projects, but there is an initiative related to lift called Building better schools. Is there any chance of this helping with our FUNDING PROBLEM ??????

Thank you for your thanks!

To answer your question I DON'T KNOW!!!!!!

I had only heard of LIFT in relation to NHS projects with relatively low capital investment. I don't think it represented a different financing route, just a more flexible contract. I thought it was mini-PPP.

But I think your question would be better addressed to someone other than myself. It may have a chance of helping but whether that chance is realistic or utterly absurd I certainly couldn't say.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 12 Mar 2006, 01:22

Before you put words into my mouth, seanie - read the ones which have come out of it.

I have never said that fence-sitting has no cost.

It is simply my opinion that if you are going to apply some sort of subjective judgement on this issue (whose ring you most certainly threw your hat into after your "scaremongering is de-rigeur" post) as well as apportioning blame to the precarious nature of the fence-sitter there is an overdue analysis of the fence itself - if only for the sake of balance.

The decision of where to expend effort depends on how much energy one has, and whether you are willing to get your hands dirty - so if you are genuinely not giving us the benefit of your judgement of our political masters (which I think would be a fine read) because you have not the time - fine.

If it's an inclination thing though - I fear that the act of professing to hold views on the people whose plan you support whilst at the same time not telling us what they are could be mistakenly be seen by some as a partisan act.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 12 Mar 2006, 01:28

...and congratulations to seanie on his 100th post!

I wish my 3000+ had as much information distilled in them - but then, there is a certain je ne sais quoi to the purveyance of gossip and tittle-tattle.

Looking forward to the next 100, sir.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 12 Mar 2006, 01:48

Dadaist wrote:Before you put words into my mouth, seanie - read the ones which have come out of it.

I have never said that fence-sitting has no cost.

No you haven't. But you did say;

So fence-sitting has a cost, does it? I can see how lawyers exist who come up with deals whose benefits shrink over time, and how out of court settlements are made through intimidation and fear - even if they exploit avarice - there is still an element of tyranny in offering something with the vague threat that if it is not taken today, it may not be there tomorrow.

If you agree that fence-sitting can have costs then I'm struggling to see the relevance of your post. If you want to argue the validty of my argument then fine. But vague allusions to lawyers , fear, tyranny, and out-of court settlements baffle me. If my argument is wrong refute it.

Don't waffle.

If it's an inclination thing though - I fear that the act of professing to hold views on the people whose plan you support whilst at the same time not telling us what they are could be mistakenly be seen by some as a partisan act.

But as you've said, that would be mistaken.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 12 Mar 2006, 01:50

Dadaist wrote:...and congratulations to seanie on his 100th post!

I wish my 3000+ had as much information distilled in them - but then, there is a certain je ne sais quoi to the purveyance of gossip and tittle-tattle.

Looking forward to the next 100, sir.

Why thank you.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 12 Mar 2006, 08:49

Marya wrote: Speaking at a more personal level, I find myself on the opposite side in this debate with more than one very good friend, but I would hate to think that we would let the matter damage the friendship. I hope that as a community that, whatever the outcome to the debate, we will be able to return to living and working together amicably.

Hear Hear!!

____________________________________________________________
"A true friend stabs you in the front"
Oscar Wilde

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 12 Mar 2006, 09:20

Mate of Marya wrote:Hello Green Dream,
I would just like to add that any private meeting you are invited to might suddenly change into a public meeting with a completely different Agenda; a ploy to ridicule our local councillors!

â€œRidicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities.â€

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 12 Mar 2006, 11:32

vague allusions to lawyers , fear, tyranny, and out-of court settlements baffle me. If my argument is wrong refute it.

Don't waffle.

Your argument is not right or wrong - you have an opinion, exactly the same as the rest of us - even if you are seeking to distance yourself from us by calling us "you all" and telling us that what we are discussing is "irrelevant".

I didn't intend to baffle with waffle, nor was my allusion meant to be vague - I only sought to make the point that it is in fact relevant, when one sees a gift being offered with some very large strings attached, to question not only the consequences of sending the gift back unopened, but the entire present-giving process too.

"Education, Education, Education"

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 12 Mar 2006, 11:40

Rex_Mundi wrote:
Mate of Marya wrote:Hello Green Dream,
I would just like to add that any private meeting you are invited to might suddenly change into a public meeting with a completely different Agenda; a ploy to ridicule our local councillors!

â€œRidicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities.â€

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 12 Mar 2006, 12:04

Dadaist wrote:This topic now has 20,000 views - and is increasing at a rate of 100 views per hour!!!

The number of views has gone up to 25,000 ... in 4 days!

Mate of Marya · Post by **Mate of Marya** » 12 Mar 2006, 12:29

Dadaist wrote:
Rex_Mundi wrote:
Mate of Marya wrote:Hello Green Dream,
I would just like to add that any private meeting you are invited to might suddenly change into a public meeting with a completely different Agenda; a ploy to ridicule our local councillors!

â€œRidicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities.â€

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 12 Mar 2006, 14:21

Dadaist wrote:Your argument is not right or wrong ...

Yes it is. Does fence sitting not chafe after a while?

Keir Hardie · Post by **Keir Hardie** » 12 Mar 2006, 14:27

[quote="seanie"]
The â€œtheyâ€

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 12 Mar 2006, 14:31

seanie wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Your argument is not right or wrong ...
Yes it is. Does fence sitting not chafe after a while?

Dunno.

Keir Hardie · Post by **Keir Hardie** » 12 Mar 2006, 15:05

If I was a parent of school age children living near the catchment boundary for Portobello High or St John's, and I hoped to send my children to either of these schools, I would be very concerned about the proposed increase in population by new dwellings on the golf course (not to mention the increase by building dwellings on the existing school sites). This is bound to push out children living at the margin of the catchment area.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 12 Mar 2006, 17:29

[quote="Keir Hardie"]Finance :Addressing the biggest of these first â€“ funding â€“ the attitudes and decisions of our politicians are very important to this â€“ they want to self finance, but we SHOULD be questioning this. I still havenâ€™t seen a convincing detailed case as to why they cannot raise the funds either from the Scottish Executive or prudential borrowing. So we canâ€™t even start to â€œconsider the proposal in principleâ€