New Portobello High School- Where and how?

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 26 Apr 2006, 13:19

anyway....the real Portobello Question......(yeah, and before you say it... I know its not really in Portobello)

how much of the park is to become a housing estate?

I wish they would just tell us. It cant be that difficult to work out. The price of the schools...take away the current school sites and the Brunstane building site, and that should be the answer i'm guessing..

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 Apr 2006, 13:21

From today's EN:

Time for new school is now so let's agree on the best place for it

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Apr 2006, 15:07

Alison Connelly wrote:Ok, I give in.

Drum roll...........

Alison Connelly (posted on Wed 19th May - page 73) wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:Alison has somehow obtained numbers relating to the contribution of that some constituent parts of the proposal will contribute:
I am trying to grasp how Alison has reached a conclusion that there is an Â£18m shortfall? Some people think she has gone on to make a valid point or argument based on this supposed shortfall.
The figures I used were given to me verbally immediately after PFANS meeting on Marh 22nd, by Ian Perry, standing in the gym hall at Towerbank. I didn't make them up. I am beginning to think however that he might have I have already explained where these figures came from. I haven't done anything with them other than report them. There does seem to be some consensus that the proposals will cost something in the region of Â£43 million (quoted earlier in this forum, although I can't remember where and I don't have the inclination to look), so if you think the shortfall will be less, then this must be because the housing receipts will be more. Perhaps the Council plan is to build more housing than the Â£13million worth that Ian Perry told me about on 22nd? So perhaps there isn't a shortfall. Perhaps the Council are avoiding one by building a few extra houses on the park

And I'm not saying it again

Can someone please enlighten me. Some of you may be aware that I have been asking the answer to the question "Did Ian Perry tell you there would be an Â£18m shortfall?"

Alison, seems to be suggesting that the answer is somewhere in the above paragraph. Did Ian Perry tell Alison that there would be an Â£18m shortfall? Yes or No?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 15:25

Alison wrote:The figures I used were given to me verbally immediately after PFANS meeting on Marh 22nd, by Ian Perry

which can be reduced to

The figures were given to me ... by Ian Perry

So - if you accept that one of the figures used by Alison was Â£18m you can reasonably assume that saying the above is the same as saying :

Figure A was given to me by Ian Perry

Figure B was given to me by Ian Perry

Figure C was given to me by Ian Perry

So if "Figure B" is "The Â£18m shortfall" then you can reasonably say that one of the things Alison is saying is :

[the figure of] The Â£18m shortfall was given to me by Ian Perry

which would mean that the answer to your question is "yes"

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 26 Apr 2006, 15:25

large green space

Just to be accurate/picky - it was was not that large. Just the extent of 29-33 or whatever M St, I seem to recall. In fact where Park House of Fallen Woman fame was.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Apr 2006, 15:28

Dadaist wrote:
Alison wrote:The figures I used were given to me verbally immediately after PFANS meeting on Marh 22nd, by Ian Perry
which can be reduced to

The figures were given to me ... by Ian Perry

So - if you accept that one of the figures used by Alison was Â£18m you can reasonably assume that saying the above is the same as saying :

Figure A was given to me by Ian Perry

Figure B was given to me by Ian Perry

Figure C was given to me by Ian Perry
So if "Figure B" is "The Â£18m shortfall" then you can reasonably say that one of the things Alison is saying is :

[the figure of] The Â£18m shortfall was given to me by Ian Perry
which would mean that the answer to your question is "yes"

Eh?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 15:30

Now you can attend to my assertion about "lies" which you have been overlooking in your zeal to hook in Alison Connelly.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Apr 2006, 16:05

Dadaist wrote:So if "Figure B" is "The Â£18m shortfall" then you can reasonably say that one of the things Alison is saying is :

[the figure of] The Â£18m shortfall was given to me by Ian Perry
which would mean that the answer to your question is "yes"

Now I see what you are getting at Dada and thanks. However, it would also be easy to put a case together for "reasonably assuming" Ian did not tell Alison.

I don't want to 'reasonably assume' anything relating to the portobello question. I would like a definitive answer, there is a definitive answer, it is yes or no. Did Ian Parry tell Alison there would be an Â£18m shortfall?

Alison now claims to have "given in".

Alison, did Ian Perry tell you there would be an Â£18m shortfall? Yes or No?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 16:06

Now you can attend to my assertion about "lies" which you have been overlooking in your zeal to hook in Alison Connelly.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 26 Apr 2006, 16:06

this thing with stephen and alison is what does my head in with the whole council shambles of a way to introduce this wonderful plan. there would be no need for the preceeding 82 pages if the council would just tell us all what they are planning and what the figures are..what is the big secret? maybe its just the shabby way that local politics works...maybe the council hasn't worked it out yet...somehow i doubt its the second option...why dont they just tell us?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Apr 2006, 16:24

Dadaist wrote:Now you can attend to my assertion about "lies" which you have been overlooking in your zeal to hook in Alison Connelly.

I promise you I will but I want an answer from Alison. I'm not looking to "hook alison". The Â£18m shortfall assertion is the basis for the PPAG proposal to decant thousands of kids into portacabins quite possibly your own little Emily.

Alison, who was first to put the theory forward is trying to imply the source as being Ian Perry. You may not think its important or you may think its boring, its actually fundamental.

Being kind, I think Alison miscalculated, she forgot to account for the houses at brunstane (which she has acknowledged) and overlooked how the real shortfall would be funded. Come on Alison, cough up. Yes or No.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 26 Apr 2006, 16:56

Being kind, I think Alison miscalculated, she forgot to account for the houses at brunstane (which she has acknowledged) and overlooked how the real shortfall would be funded.

there are more than a few fundamental unanswered questions about the council proposals...i hope they come up with some answers soon too......

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 26 Apr 2006, 17:07

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
You may not think its important or you may think its boring, its actually fundamental.

Why is it fundamental? Besides, you're the one claiming to know what the actual shortfall will be (it not being 43-25 apparently) but refuse to share that information. (Or where you got it from).

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 26 Apr 2006, 17:08

The following may prove of interest to some...

http://www.bullyonline.org/action/policy.htm which contains the following:-

Bullying differs from harassment and discrimination in that the focus is rarely based on gender, race, or disability. The focus is often on competence, or rather the alleged lack of competence of the bullied person. In reality, the target of bullying is often competent and popular, and the bully is aggressively projecting their own social, interpersonal and professional inadequacy onto their target. The purpose of projection is to avoid facing up to that inadequacy and doing something about it, and - mainly - to distract and divert attention away from the bully's inadequacies, shortcomings and failings. In most cases, the bullying you see is the tip of an iceberg of wrongdoing by the bully.

ali · Post by **ali** » 26 Apr 2006, 17:27

PortyMan wrote:The following may prove of interest to some...

http://www.bullyonline.org/action/policy.htm which contains the following:-
Bullying differs from harassment and discrimination in that the focus is rarely based on gender, race, or disability. The focus is often on competence, or rather the alleged lack of competence of the bullied person. In reality, the target of bullying is often competent and popular, and the bully is aggressively projecting their own social, interpersonal and professional inadequacy onto their target. The purpose of projection is to avoid facing up to that inadequacy and doing something about it, and - mainly - to distract and divert attention away from the bully's inadequacies, shortcomings and failings. In most cases, the bullying you see is the tip of an iceberg of wrongdoing by the bully.

If you are making an allegation of bullying by Mr MacIntyre here then you are being ridiculous - Stephen might be accused of boring people - but not bullying!!!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 17:42

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Now you can attend to my assertion about "lies" which you have been overlooking in your zeal to hook in Alison Connelly.
I promise you I will but I want an answer from Alison. I'm not looking to "hook alison". The Â£18m shortfall assertion is the basis for the PPAG proposal to decant thousands of kids into portacabins quite possibly your own little Emily.

Alison, who was first to put the theory forward is trying to imply the source as being Ian Perry. You may not think its important or you may think its boring, its actually fundamental.

Being kind, I think Alison miscalculated, she forgot to account for the houses at brunstane (which she has acknowledged) and overlooked how the real shortfall would be funded. Come on Alison, cough up. Yes or No.

If you will excuse me for aggressively projecting my interpersonal inadequacy I invite you to attend to my assertion about "lies" while-u-wait.

Can I also ask you - what are you planning to say in either eventuality from this question when she does finally answer?

What next if she says "Yes" ?

What next if she says "No" ?

You've had plenty of time to think about your responses - what are they?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 26 Apr 2006, 17:51

PortyMan wrote:The following may prove of interest to some...

http://www.bullyonline.org/action/policy.htm which contains the following:-
Bullying differs from harassment and discrimination in that the focus is rarely based on gender, race, or disability. The focus is often on competence, or rather the alleged lack of competence of the bullied person. In reality, the target of bullying is often competent and popular, and the bully is aggressively projecting their own social, interpersonal and professional inadequacy onto their target. The purpose of projection is to avoid facing up to that inadequacy and doing something about it, and - mainly - to distract and divert attention away from the bully's inadequacies, shortcomings and failings. In most cases, the bullying you see is the tip of an iceberg of wrongdoing by the bully.

Excellent Post PortyMan, it is always good to be reminded of the rules as we can all sometimes get a bit carried away. However rather than just posting a link, I suggest you read it, or if you have read it, then act on it. Here is the ending of a Post you wrote last Sunday:

PortyMan wrote: Substantially different from your twisted interpretation.

You still seem to believe you don't pay more for a house with a park view than one with, say a view of an electricity power plant? Then maybe your grasp of the property market hasn't improved any since you "stopped being 'in the business' in 1991"?

(You never did post what you do these days... I have since learned, but in the spirit of the forum I will retain that piece of information to myself. )

"I could go on" - That's the problem, you do.

Personally, I find it it totally out of order that you can make underlying insinuations about the competence of a fellow 'poster' with regard to how he earns his living.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 Apr 2006, 18:18

Although the report isn't officially in the public domain until tomorrow, and we will of course publish it online at that time, in view of the speculation over the funding gap I can tell you that, having just seen a copy of the report, a replacement PHS to cater for 1400 pupils is estimated at Â£34 M and a replacement St Johns at Â£7 M.

Housing development 'based around relatively low densities to reflect anticipated design requirements' is estimated as providing receipts of Â£28 M. The gap is therefore around Â£13 M which the Council would hope to meet through prudential borrowing and via the Capital Investment Programme.

Several options are still under consideration. However, two options appear to have been ruled out:

Major refurbishment of the school: Although this could offer benefits by improving the appearance of the building, this is a short-term holding option. It does not address the issues of flexibility for modern education or the compound problems of an 8 storey tower block, neither would it provide playing fields. It would also introduce substantial difficulties with decanting the pupils while the works are carried out. This option would be poor value for money.

Rebuild the school on its existing site: The footprint of the school is half of that required for a modern low-level school with sports pitches. In addition the pupil decant issues are immense. To provide decant facilities for a two year period is in itself a major issue. There is no temporary accomodation available on this side of the City. In addition the area required for accessible single storey transportable units for a 1400 pupil school creates the same site search issues as a permanent site. Crucially however many of the current school issues would remain on this site. Given the site constraints which would force compromises to the design, and the high cost of providing temporary decant accommodation, this option represents worse value for money than building a new school elsewhere.

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 26 Apr 2006, 18:38

Stephen McIntyre wrote: Did Ian Perry tell Alison that there would be an Â£18m shortfall? Yes or No?

I think the question which you should be answering is

Did Ian Perry tell you that he did not.

and if he did, would Mandy Rice-Davies, have had something to say about it

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 26 Apr 2006, 19:10

Poppy wrote:
large green space
Just to be accurate/picky - it was was not that large. Just the extent of 29-33 or whatever M St, I seem to recall. In fact where Park House of Fallen Woman fame was.

Thought fallen women were at No. 37 (ground floor left to be precise)? If so, 29-37 is quite a big area considering they each have quite big back greens. Or was it the then Council's idea of a 'park' in which case it would be quite small

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 26 Apr 2006, 19:18

Bob Jefferson wrote:The gap is therefore around Â£13 M .

So, the gap is Â£13M. Not that far a cry from Â£18M in the scheme of things and supposing Ian Perry handed Alison a bit of paper with Â£13M scrawled on it, she could easily have misread that as Â£18M - so Alison was right all along

Porty, you've gone a bit quiet.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 26 Apr 2006, 19:25

Epykat wrote:
Poppy wrote:
large green space
Just to be accurate/picky - it was was not that large. Just the extent of 29-33 or whatever M St, I seem to recall. In fact where Park House of Fallen Woman fame was.
Thought fallen women were at No. 37 (ground floor left to be precise)? If so, 29-37 is quite a big area considering they each have quite big back greens. Or was it the then Council's idea of a 'park' in which case it would be quite small

No, dear Epy, the house for Fallen Women was there BEFORE the tenements were built! The tenements were built on the site of Park House.

However, Portobello was very small then anyway and 'parks' were not as we know them now.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 26 Apr 2006, 20:21

Bob Jefferson wrote:Although the report isn't officially in the public domain until tomorrow, and we will of course publish it online at that time....

Looking forward to reading it Bob, but where oh where did you get it prior to public disclosure

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 26 Apr 2006, 20:42

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 23:11

Stephen, I look forward still to your response to my assertion about "lies".

This comment was made by me on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 4:26 pm

There have been vague responses but nothing specific - my comment was made in direct reference to the "Save The Parks" green leaflet claim about the 1890 non-gift and your claim that even though you were not making a direct accusation of "lying", this statement was (one of several) "lies".

Please respond at your earliest convenience.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Apr 2006, 23:19

BTW I have never discussed shortfall with Ian Perry only Alison has had that privlege. Did he tell you Â£18m Alison?

Epykat wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:The gap is therefore around Â£13 M .
So, the gap is Â£13M. Not that far a cry from Â£18M in the scheme of things and supposing Ian Perry handed Alison a bit of paper with Â£13M scrawled on it, she could easily have misread that as Â£18M - so Alison was right all along
Porty, you've gone a bit quiet.

Epykat, Â£5m out on the Â£18m decant and rebuild programme that PPAG invented is a massive amount. Â£18m over Â£13m why thats only a 39% exaggeration!!! Nowhere near a Portyman size overstatement.

However here's the fun part: PPAG, on the basis of Alison's inside knowledge, had a great funding formula that could rebuild the school on its existing site, to the PPP spec. I believe they even had an expert on decant and rebuild talk at their guild meeting to tell everyone about the viability.

The premise was that the cost of the PPP school equated to the amount of the shortfall in the council's park proposal. PPAG therefore argue that if the council can find the shortfalll for the park proposal then they can find the equivalent money for the rebuild on site.

Would anyone care to calculate how much PPAG would be out and take a guess at how long the children would be decanted into portacabins because the project had run out of money? All the numbers are availalbe now. Lets see how the PPAG "decant, demoralise and divide" funding proposal stacks up? (leave aside the 2004 prices effect).

Alison your good at numbers. Take the Â£13m shortfall above and apply it the the coist of the PPP school, remember and add in the cost of the decant, say Â£5m. How's it looking?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Apr 2006, 23:35

Dadaist wrote:Stephen, I look forward still to your response to my assertion about "lies".

This comment was made by me on Fri Apr 21, 2006 at 4:26 pm

There have been vague responses but nothing specific - my comment was made in direct reference to the "Save The Parks" green leaflet claim about the 1890 non-gift and your claim that even though you were not making a direct accusation of "lying", this statement was (one of several) "lies".

Please respond at your earliest convenience.

I do know that I called the 1890 gift statement a downright lie. If you can find other examples I will address.

The lie in question relates to the land transaction that took place in 1890, it wasn't a gift it did not even involve the council, to say so is a downright lie. In 1890 the now Portoello Park was sold , as part of a 468 acres tranche of land, by the Behar coal mining company (in liquidation( to Sir James Miller. No gift no council.

So was the lie deliberate?I say it should have been ratified and substaniated prior to being published and distributed to the good citizens of Portobello. Deliberate or not makes little difference.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 26 Apr 2006, 23:37

Dave Connelly wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:Although the report isn't officially in the public domain until tomorrow, and we will of course publish it online at that time....
Looking forward to reading it Bob, but where oh where did you get it prior to public disclosure

Same place dccairns and Gemini got it.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Apr 2006, 23:48

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Rebuild the school on its existing site: The footprint of the school is half of that required for a modern low-level school with sports pitches. In addition the pupil decant issues are immense. To provide decant facilities for a two year period is in itself a major issue. There is no temporary accomodation available on this side of the City. In addition the area required for accessible single storey transportable units for a 1400 pupil school creates the same site search issues as a permanent site. Crucially however many of the current school issues would remain on this site. Given the site constraints which would force compromises to the design, and the high cost of providing temporary decant accommodation, this option represents worse value for money than building a new school elsewhere.

I look forward tio this statement being included on both PFANS and PPAGS next pro-schools bulletins and the websites of course.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Apr 2006, 23:55

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Same place dccairns and Gemini got it.

Were they the "community's best interests" reps?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 00:35

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Deliberate or not makes little difference

This is where you differ with the recognized definition of what a "lie" is, which states that the intent to mislead has to be there.

It may make little difference to you, and it doesn't change the fact that the land wasn't a gift, but it's not a lie by accepted definition.

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 27 Apr 2006, 07:23

My dearest Dada,

Young Henry was on the electronic gogglebox this morning and low and behold he tells me that our friends across the water near the East Neuk have also gone down the

"Lets release some Greenfield sites to builders" route in the ever-growing trend to "bring fresh blood to the area and re-kindle the tourist trade" type of arrangement.

What a wonderful Idea. I was thinking though, our parliament is discussing digging large holes in Scotland today to bury radioactive waste.

Perhaps we could send a delegation to suggest they bury the waste in Fife, and then by simply changing a couple of letters they could be East Nuke.

Even better still, I believe, (sorry We have been told) that there would be a couple of hundred quid in it for local residents, so why not allow another couple of holes under the Portobello golf course, let them dump the stuff there and we could pocket the cash?

Yours in Thatcher

Rex

pip pip

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 08:28

Rex_Mundi wrote: Yours in Thatcher

Even when the reference is in jest, I still shudder at the thought of the undead one

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 27 Apr 2006, 08:45

Dadaist wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:Deliberate or not makes little difference
This is where you differ with the recognized definition of what a "lie" is, which states that the intent to mislead has to be there.

It may make little difference to you, and it doesn't change the fact that the land wasn't a gift, but it's not a lie by accepted definition.

You are overstatng the potential amount of difference it makes to me.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 08:50

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:Deliberate or not makes little difference
This is where you differ with the recognized definition of what a "lie" is, which states that the intent to mislead has to be there.

It may make little difference to you, and it doesn't change the fact that the land wasn't a gift, but it's not a lie by accepted definition.
You are overstatng the potential amount of difference it makes to me.

Thanks for clarifying that, I look forward to you tackling the main body of this at your earliest convenience.

(edit -> brief note -> My reference to the amount of difference came from a quote made by you - that is that it made "little" difference. Whether this is actual or potential difference, your comment that I am "overstating" the amount is counter-productive to your argument, as in effect you are accusing yourself of overstatement.)