New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 25 Apr 2006, 06:43

Dadaist wrote: I bagsie being the idiot though.

There would appear to be a long, long queue for that post I'm afraid, and you would be way, way back.

Providence protects children and idiots. I know because I have tested it.

M.T. again, sorry, I am getting to like him.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Apr 2006, 08:05

Long may you talk in quotations, sir. This lunatic collage needs you.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 10:13

At the Community Council meeting last night Nick Stroud intimated that there was an invite extended from the School for the community council to visit for a look round and he said something like "So if anyone fancies it they can let me know afterwards"

Lawrence stepped in and appealed that perhaps the onus was on the Community Council to inspect the school and that they should be treating the invite more formally. He suggested that the CC may even have a meeting at the school.

Tom Smith, who was chairing, said that there would be no trip until the council had sorted out "what position" the CC were to take on the school. They woulod require a meeting to decide their position and would then consider whether a visit was appropriate.

The purpose of any visit would be to get a first hand look at the condition of the school.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Apr 2006, 10:41

In one sense, I see this as a pointless exercise. I think the whole debate has moved on from whether the school needs to be replaced or not and we now have three clear options to consider. There may be one or two people who are still talking about refurbishment, or indeed whether a replacement school is required, but they are in a very small minority.

Outwith those schools selected for PPP2, Portobello High is now officially the school most desperately needing to be replaced and remains Edinburgh's largest school on the smallest site.

If there are members of the Community Council who need to be convinced of this, then perhaps a visit would be useful but the viability of a building is a complex issue and it would require experts to explain the problems.

Jbrock · Post by **Jbrock** » 25 Apr 2006, 11:02

Rex_Mundi wrote:We are told that you are an excellent speaker Tom

Rex, on Friday, Dave Connelly posted (among other things) that Tom was a good speaker. You can normally count on Dave's judgment.

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 25 Apr 2006, 12:16

Alison Connelly wrote:Portobello Park Action Group are supporting the need for new schools, but urging the Council to consider alternatives which will allow the community to have improved school facilities, but ALSO keep the park and golf course

It would be very helpful to hear how PPAG are supporting the building of new schools for Portobello. What realistic options are they proposing?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Apr 2006, 12:25

Hi Gilo and welcome to the forum.

Can you point me to where it says that PPAG have to come up with alternatives?

Even though I don't support their aims, I think it entirely sufficient that they state their reasons for opposing this or that plan without being forced into coming up with alternatives.

Also, Alison said that PPAG were supporting the "need" for new schools - in order to do that, all one has to do is simply say or think "we need a new school" surely?

(Stephen - I know that you think that my comments or questions about this or that are "denigrating" and somehow this means that I think that this or that person is incapable of defending themselves properly - I reject that assertion out of hand. Call me a stirrer or troublemaker for sure, but kindly do not put thoughts into my head!!)

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 25 Apr 2006, 12:48

Welcome to the forum Gilo.

Dadaist wrote:Even though I don't support their aims, I think it entirely sufficient that they state their reasons for opposing this or that plan without being forced into coming up with alternatives.

Dadaist, PPAG may not, in your opinion, have any obligation to come up with any alternatives, but the fact is they have.

However, there is a problem in that if you missed the PPAG public meeting you may know nothing about this or if, like me, you were there, but didn't get a photo copy of their alternative to the likely Council proposals then you will still know very little about it.

Gilo's question gives us all the opportunity to hear more about PPAG's suggestion.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Apr 2006, 12:55

Cool!

Even if it's a complete dogs breakfast though it doesn't detract from the initial position they have taken.

I'm sure you, Bob and Porty will rip into it like rottweilers but hey, thats politics.

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 25 Apr 2006, 12:59

Thanks Dadaist, good to be here. Keen to here from someone from PPAG.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:11

Gilo wrote:Thanks Dadaist, good to be here. Keen to here from someone from PPAG.

If the PPAG plan is PPP I'm b******d if I'm sticking up for them any more, nor will I host the SSP leaflets (and it would be rather perverse of the SSP to have anything to do with PPP)

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:15

Jbrock wrote:
Rex_Mundi wrote:We are told that you are an excellent speaker Tom
Rex, on Friday, Dave Connelly posted (among other things) that Tom was a good speaker. You can normally count on Dave's judgment.

Not when it comes to freightliner terminals.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:17

Dadaist wrote:... but kindly do not put thoughts into my head!!)

I am nowhere near qualified.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:25

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:27

Gilo, you need to get help from someone else from PfAG. Alison doesn't do answers.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:28

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:30

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:32

Alison Connelly wrote:
Dadaist wrote: If the PPAG plan is PPP I'm b******d if I'm sticking up for them any more, nor will I host the SSP leaflets (and it would be rather perverse of the SSP to have anything to do with PPP)
The PPP bit of it is irrelevant - it is the layout/feasibility of the building which was being considered - it just happens to be that the document was prepared are part of the council bid for PPP funding, so it has been labelled "PPP".

Tipp-Ex.

I ain't touching nothing that says PPP on it.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:32

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:35

ok Alison, Did Ian Perry tell you there would be an Â£18m shortfall?

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:37

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:48

Alison Connelly wrote: I liked the suggestion Lawrence made at the meeting on Thursday that Marine Gardens (the bus depot) could be another option worthy of consideration, although it doesn't seem to be on the Council's short list.

I quite like that one too Alison. There are obvious drawbacks such as it being on the very edge of the catchment area and there would be some pupils who would find it difficult to get to. It also, as Cllr Berry pointed out, would be a more expensive option and one which could take much longer to set up, which is of concern. In addition I think that St John's would be out of the loop?
But I must admit a 'school by the sea' has a ring to it!

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 13:51

Alison Connelly wrote:
Alison Connelly wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:Gilo, you need to get help from someone else from PfAG. Alison doesn't do answers.
I try to restrict myself to answering sensible questions
Oh - and ones I haven't already answered several times :

I'm not sure that the following question falls into that particular category however if so can you indicate where you answered the question.

Did Ian Perry tell you there would be an Â£18m shortfall?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Apr 2006, 16:54

Did Ian Perry tell you there would be an Â£18m shortfall?

To be known forever after as 'the Portobello question'.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Apr 2006, 17:22

Its a simple Yes or No answer and Alison built a whole alternative funding proposal around the assumption. I wonder why she will not answer it?

Come on Alison be nice: Did Ian Perry tell you that there would be an Â£18m shortfall?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 25 Apr 2006, 17:28

Marya wrote:......But I must admit a 'school by the sea' has a ring to it!

It's called Towerbank Marya!

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 25 Apr 2006, 17:53

Alison Connelly wrote:I presume that you have used the word "realistic" in your question to imply that any other options you have heard so far are unrealistic?

By realistic I meant options other than Portobello Park that the council may readily consider e.g. they have similar funding implications for the council and similar facilities for the schools.

My fear is that without realistic alternatives PPAG may, in effect, be campaigning to stop the buliding of new schools. If PPAG's campaign is successful with no alternatives found I'd cry.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 25 Apr 2006, 19:12

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Its a simple Yes or No answer and Alison built a whole alternative funding proposal around the assumption. I wonder why she will not answer it?

Come on Alison be nice: Did Ian Perry tell you that there would be an Â£18m shortfall?

I was there when Ian Perry Spoke to Alison about this, in fact as I recall there were three people there.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 25 Apr 2006, 19:16

Jbrock wrote:
Rex_Mundi wrote:We are told that you are an excellent speaker Tom
Rex, on Friday, Dave Connelly posted (among other things) that Tom was a good speaker. You can normally count on Dave's judgment.

Gosh!

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 25 Apr 2006, 19:21

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Did Ian Perry tell you there would be an Â£18m shortfall?

43 - 25 =

I am sure I saw that somewhere, maybe I am wrong.
Is this the answer to the Potobello Question

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 25 Apr 2006, 19:35

I'm hoping that the extent of the funding gap will be revealed tomorrow but there are probably still too many variables at this stage to say for sure. I would be concerned if it is as much as Â£18 M as this still leaves a lot of money to find.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 25 Apr 2006, 19:56

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 25 Apr 2006, 22:00

Alison Connelly wrote:But, hey, who minds a few more houses, and a few less parks?

The Parks are a real drain on Council finances anyway. All that grass cutting etc. And if you REALLY want more green space you just magic it up so there is no problem whatsoever. I'm warming to the idea.....

. Walking through housing estates giving opinions on the state of the gardens or the curtains is much more fun than walking over a dreary bit of grass anyway and from a doggy point of view poop scooping is actually easier on concrete. This idea is just getting better by the minute.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 00:14

Epykat - I blame the political culture of emissions trading.

These days you seem to be able to pollute your back yard as long as you buy some trees in a distant land - by this token the likes of our cynical pro-plan posse will be able to confidently argue that the amount of parks is increasing even when we live in a concrete jungle!

By the time the investigative team from Channel 4 discover the completely obvious (that when you build on green space you end up with less green space on the bit you built on) and the disappointingly predictable (many other councils have bought into the same greenspace-shifting plan and what people thought were distinct areas are actually all the same back garden in Melbourne) it'll be too late but hey - education beats golf and there was no realistic alternative.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Apr 2006, 08:47

Dave Connelly wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:Its a simple Yes or No answer and Alison built a whole alternative funding proposal around the assumption. I wonder why she will not answer it?

Come on Alison be nice: Did Ian Perry tell you that there would be an Â£18m shortfall?
I was there when Ian Perry Spoke to Alison about this, in fact as I recall there were three people there.

Dave, did Ian Perry tell either yourself, Alison or both of you that there would be an Â£18m shorfall?

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Re: portobello high school

Re: portobello high school

Re: portobello high school

Re: portobello high school

Re: portobello high school