New Schools Proposal - The Wider Issues

[Maria]

I'm just rather confused about some of your opinions and am trying to clarify on what information you base your 'imaginings' of the conduct of volunteers on local bodies such as the CC and local School Boards. It is obviously a topic that holds a fair bit on interest for you, judging by your recent postings and the new thread that you've started on this Forum today, so I've tried to look for clues:

On one hand you

applaud all those who selflessly volounteer to serve our community

but on the other, you also 'imagine' that some such people are zealots. This was rather surprising for me as a CC member. Had you witnessed this 'zealotory' in action I wondered? Had I unwittingly dozed off during a CC meeting and missed something? But, no, you acknowledged that you have never attended any meeting of the local CC.

You also, I would imagine, have never attended a meeting of the St John's School board but are

sure that Alison's dual roles as a member of St Johns board and also as a member of PPAG are handled properly.

Hurrah! A much more positive picture of a local volunteer body. No zealotory or conflict of interest there. So what makes you so sure that one local body operates so honourably while another falls prey to 'zealotory'? Well, there's no logical pattern that I can discern.

Perhaps it might all make more sense if you stopped 'imaging' these scenarios Dadaist, stopped standing shyly on the sidelines and accepted some of these invitations which are being pushed apon you. You know what Shakespeare said:
"Some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon 'em.'
Oh dear, now see what you've done. I'm starting to sound just like Rex Mundi

[bellybabe]

...And of course, nobody seemed to have a problem with PCATS being represented on the community council. It's amazing how many things that were acceptable for PCATS are not acceptable for people over the schools debate, where opinions are seemingly more divided. I haven't heard anyone complaining that that particular single issue body is represented.

Presumably, Dada, if you feel it's not entirely a positive thing for people like Jackie Brock and Stephen McIntyre to have joined the CC over the schools issue, then the same goes for the PPAG representative and the PCATS representative and anyone else with a single issue agenda...and yet you dont seem to be mentioning those particular groups. Just an oversight on your part?

BB

[Dadaist]

BB

What a lot of verbiage!

Not an oversight at all. I do love the phrase "not entirely positive" - can I borrow it?

I think there's a measurable difference between the rep. positions in the CC and the individual ones in terms of agenda, tactics etc - in fact I was thinking of asking in the "Entryism" thread whether it was entirely positive that people were joining the CC over issues which were already rightly and properly represented!

So no, not an oversight.

[Dadaist]

I'm just rather confused about some of your opinions and am trying to clarify on what information you base your 'imaginings' of the conduct of volunteers on local bodies such as the CC and local School Boards. It is obviously a topic that holds a fair bit on interest for you, judging by your recent postings and the new thread that you've started on this Forum today, so I've tried to look for clues:

On one hand you

applaud all those who selflessly volounteer to serve our community

The key word is "selflessly". Try reading it again in its context. Say a bunch of people were having a conversation about how much they liked fried eggs. If you wanted to make a point about fried eggs in a manner which didn't overtly insult those who loved them, you could simply say - I like boiled eggs.

but on the other, you also 'imagine' that some such people are zealots. This was rather surprising for me as a CC member. Had you witnessed this 'zealotory' in action I wondered?

Yes. When I was behind you at the hijack meeting I witnessed you heckling the councillors.

Had I unwittingly dozed off during a CC meeting and missed something? But, no, you acknowledged that you have never attended any meeting of the local CC.

You also, I would imagine, have never attended a meeting of the St John's School board but are

sure that Alison's dual roles as a member of St Johns board and also as a member of PPAG are handled properly.

Context again. Sometimes a sentence can have a bit missing - say "I like boiled eggs" with the obvious missing bit being something derogatory about fried eggs. Sometimes, though, you can mean the opposite of what you say. Maybe I should start using italics.

Hurrah! A much more positive picture of a local volunteer body. No zealotory or conflict of interest there. So what makes you so sure that one local body operates so honourably while another falls prey to 'zealotory'? Well, there's no logical pattern that I can discern.

I hope you're clear now. I've lost faith in both school boards and the CC.

Perhaps it might all make more sense if you stopped 'imaging' these scenarios Dadaist, stopped standing shyly on the sidelines and accepted some of these invitations which are being pushed apon you. You know what Shakespeare said:
"Some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon 'em.'
Oh dear, now see what you've done. I'm starting to sound just like Rex Mundi

It makes perfect sense.

[bellybabe]

Oh dear, Dadaist, as often seems to happen when you get caught out, you've gone all verbose and blustery. If you're not bothered about the representatives, why keep mentioning them?

And I love your response to Marya - talk about changing the comments to suit yourself - like here:

Quote:
but on the other, you also 'imagine' that some such people are zealots. This was rather surprising for me as a CC member. Had you witnessed this 'zealotory' in action I wondered?


Yes. When I was behind you at the hijack meeting I witnessed you heckling the councillors.

Because after all, it seemed that you were talking about community council meetings that you don't appear to ever have attended - so now you've widened your argument to cover totally different meetings that have nothing to do with the CC. I suppose otherwise you'd have to admit that no, actually, your judgements are not rooted in any actual real experience you've had. I see your usual tactics are well to the fore today.

And I really must applaud this:

Quote:
Had I unwittingly dozed off during a CC meeting and missed something? But, no, you acknowledged that you have never attended any meeting of the local CC.

You also, I would imagine, have never attended a meeting of the St John's School board but are
Quote:
sure that Alison's dual roles as a member of St Johns board and also as a member of PPAG are handled properly.


Context again. Sometimes a sentence can have a bit missing - say "I like boiled eggs" with the obvious missing bit being something derogatory about fried eggs. Sometimes, though, you can mean the opposite of what you say. Maybe I should start using italics.

That reads as though you're saying that you meant the opposite of what you said about Alison...but of course, that would all depend on the context. And after all, you seem able to change the context to suit whatever your argument for the day happens to be.

I salute you.

And await your next insulting comment...because oddly enough, considering you seem to have appointed yourself POL's moral guardian, your first response when someone challenges one of your points is so often to just insult them using grandiose words. I hope I haven't overstepped the mark, dear - I know you like to be left to pick holes in other people's posts whilst everyone else should leave yours alone.

[Pal of Porty]

I recently attended a PCC meeting for the first time ever (as a citizen of Portobello and not as a representative of any organisation) but I did go for a single issue.

The single issue was the fact that the PCC had been talking about closing down this forum. I went along to support Bob and Marya in their presentation and to voice my support as appropriate. How radical of me, in fact I could have become a zealot if it meant that the only way of saving the forum was to stand for election to the PCC!

[Alison Connelly]

removed

[Dadaist]

Oh dear, Dadaist, as often seems to happen when you get caught out, you've gone all verbose and blustery. If you're not bothered about the representatives, why keep mentioning them?

Eh? Point to me the bit where I got caught out - I've tried to be as honest as possible in my response to Marya.

And I love your response to Marya - talk about changing the comments to suit yourself - like here:

Quote:
but on the other, you also 'imagine' that some such people are zealots. This was rather surprising for me as a CC member. Had you witnessed this 'zealotory' in action I wondered?


Yes. When I was behind you at the hijack meeting I witnessed you heckling the councillors.

Because after all, it seemed that you were talking about community council meetings that you don't appear to ever have attended - so now you've widened your argument to cover totally different meetings that have nothing to do with the CC. I suppose otherwise you'd have to admit that no, actually, your judgements are not rooted in any actual real experience you've had. I see your usual tactics are well to the fore today.

I've witnessed Marya heckle at a meeting. I assume she acts the same way from one to the other.

And I really must applaud this:

Quote:
Had I unwittingly dozed off during a CC meeting and missed something? But, no, you acknowledged that you have never attended any meeting of the local CC.

You also, I would imagine, have never attended a meeting of the St John's School board but are
Quote:
sure that Alison's dual roles as a member of St Johns board and also as a member of PPAG are handled properly.


Context again. Sometimes a sentence can have a bit missing - say "I like boiled eggs" with the obvious missing bit being something derogatory about fried eggs. Sometimes, though, you can mean the opposite of what you say. Maybe I should start using italics.

That reads as though you're saying that you meant the opposite of what you said about Alison...but of course, that would all depend on the context. And after all, you seem able to change the context to suit whatever your argument for the day happens to be.

Like I said, I tried to give Marya as accurate a reply as I could. In future, I'll use italics and give footnotes as, believe it or not, I thought people could tell when I was being sarcastic. Did you not read the post I made comparing PPAG to terrorists who had given up violence?

I salute you.

And await your next insulting comment...because oddly enough, considering you seem to have appointed yourself POL's moral guardian, your first response when someone challenges one of your points is so often to just insult them using grandiose words. I hope I haven't overstepped the mark, dear - I know you like to be left to pick holes in other people's posts whilst everyone else should leave yours alone.

I don't set out to insult you at all. I've not appointed myself anything. I'm happy to accept your labels, though.

[Dadaist]

[
I hope you're clear now. I've lost faith in both school boards and the CC.

I'm disappointed in this because St John's school board have had a stable membership since well before all this new school stuff started, and while we obviously have personal views on community and other issues, our school board meetings and discussions have always been based on a real effort to be as objective as possible. We are not politicians, and I think I am speaking for all the board when I say that we genuinely want what is best for St John's. Stephen has done a very good job of running us down, basically because he hasn't liked or agreed with everything we've said, but this is not helpful in prompting healthy discussion

Sorry. From what I've read on here these last few days, it looks very much like there are people on the school boards who have methods and agendas which are less than entirely positive.

[Porty]

I'm disappointed in this because St John's school board have had a stable membership since well before all this new school stuff started, and while we obviously have personal views on community and other issues, our school board meetings and discussions have always been based on a real effort to be as objective as possible. We are not politicians, and I think I am speaking for all the board when I say that we genuinely want what is best for St John's.

In what way would relocating to Power League or Scottish Power be best for St John's? What are the educational advantages?

[Dadaist]

I'm disappointed in this because St John's school board have had a stable membership since well before all this new school stuff started, and while we obviously have personal views on community and other issues, our school board meetings and discussions have always been based on a real effort to be as objective as possible. We are not politicians, and I think I am speaking for all the board when I say that we genuinely want what is best for St John's.

In what way would relocating to Power League or Scottish Power be best for St John's? What are the educational advantages?

Oy - get off of my thread!

[Dadaist]

I recently attended a PCC meeting for the first time ever (as a citizen of Portobello and not as a representative of any organisation) but I did go for a single issue.

The single issue was the fact that the PCC had been talking about closing down this forum. I went along to support Bob and Marya in their presentation and to voice my support as appropriate. How radical of me, in fact I could have become a zealot if it meant that the only way of saving the forum was to stand for election to the PCC!

Somehow, I feel I could never hang the zealotry tag on you even if you joined the CC in full Hare Krishna (1) regalia.



---------------------------------
Footnotes for this post


(1) Please insert the dogmatic religion (a) of your choice. HK is most probably a peaceful and nice religion, and I picked it off the top of my head as an example of zealotry, not to make any point about HK itself or even about religion.


-----------------------------------
Footnotes for the above footnotes

(a) I didn't mean that all religions are dogmatic in a negative way - even if they all do have some form of dogma. You could amend this to say "please insert a dogmatic religion of your choice" - or even dispense with the phrase altogether and use the word "cult".

[Maria]

but on the other, you also 'imagine' that some such people are zealots. This was rather surprising for me as a CC member. Had you witnessed this 'zealotory' in action I wondered?

Yes. When I was behind you at the hijack meeting I witnessed you heckling the councillors.

Ah, so I'm one of the zealots! Now I know you're definitely operating in an imaginary land.

As has already been pointed out to you, the context, (for both your post and my reply to it) was the conduct of local bodies ; the CC and school board. Since you mention it, however, I can't see any logical reason why I would have heckled one of our elected representatives at the meeting in PHS. I imagine you must be confusing me with someone from PPAG.

[Dadaist]

Marya - for your benefit I've given footnotes on this post. Rest assured that in the future, I'll try and avoid confusing people as best I can.

It would seem that this post has been taken far too literally, and for that I apologise - I didn't set out to mislead anyone into thinking that I thought that there might be individuals with a less than entirely positive approach - I thought it was clear from the tone of this post that I was feigning naivety.

I would be upset if it was uncovered that any individuals had joined a school board with the intention of subverting its purpose to suit an agenda - in this case, the issue of PHS/St Johns and the park. (1)

I'd also be upset if it was uncovered that any individuals had joined the community council with the intention of subverting its purpose to suit an agenda too! (2)

I'm sure that Alison's dual roles as a member of St Johns board and also as a member of PPAG are handled properly. (3)

I'm also sure that nobody would join the community council just to try and push their side of one issue. (4)

I applaud all those who selflessly volounteer to serve our community. (5)


--------------------------------
Footnotes

(1) Trying to make a parallel between the actions of a couple of our forum members, without explicitly saying "one or more of youse is bent!"

(2) Same approach as (1) but for the CC "zealots".

(3) Trying to highlight the blatant conflict between being a member of both groups.

(4) I give up over this. It's a complete ringer and I never thought it would need italics. But there you go. I meant it in the most leading and sarcastic manner I could muster and never gave a moment's thought somebody would think I actually thought like that.

(5) ... and certainly don't applaud those who join to suit one agenda. Next time, I'll use italics and explanatory footnotes at the time of publishing.

[Dadaist]

but on the other, you also 'imagine' that some such people are zealots. This was rather surprising for me as a CC member. Had you witnessed this 'zealotory' in action I wondered?

Yes. When I was behind you at the hijack meeting I witnessed you heckling the councillors.

Ah, so I'm one of the zealots! Now I know you're definitely operating in an imaginary land.

As has already been pointed out to you, the context, (for both your post and my reply to it) was the conduct of local bodies ; the CC and school board. Since you mention it, however, I can't see any logical reason why I would have heckled one of our elected representatives at the meeting in PHS. I imagine you must be confusing me with someone from PPAG.

Nope. The one where you were sat next to Bob in the school hall. You spoke out loud, out of turn, and in a combative manner. I really hope this doesn't end with you calling me a liar - I would never accuse you of that.

[Maria]

I know what 'heckle' means Dadaist and freely admit that I showed my displeasure at the meeting being 'hijacked' by a member of the audience who was preventing the presentation from proceeding.

However, I did not heckle any of the panel, which included council officials and councillors, so yes, you are mistaken when you say you witnessed me 'heckling the councillors'.

[Dadaist]

I guess we must remember the incident differently.

You're right though that it would make no sense for you to heckle the presentation dudes, as you so obviously bat for their agenda!

Two wrongs don't make a right though - and your behaviour has shaped my thinking on what the conduct of CC meetings must be like (happy to be wrong on that count!) and also how strong the feelings are running over the schools issue.

[Alison Connelly]

removed.

[Dadaist]

Spoken like a true politician (1).


-------------------------------------
Footnotes

1. I hate politicians who give cynical and carefully worded answers. With the exception of that Nixon interview with Frost where he was honest for a bit, they'll never hold their hands up and admit that well, yes, they were a little bit bent and told a bunch of porkies.

[Pal of Porty]

I have never denied that I have concerns about building on green space, and in this respect I share PPAG's concern about the loss of Portobello Park/Golf Course as a green space -especially to housing. However I am not a "member" of PPAG, and have not signed up to anything which compromises my position on St John's school board.

You (or another Alison Connelly) signed the PPAG petition (Number 62) which is against building a school on the Park/Golf Course.
2 of the possible options in the Independent Consultants report have St John's being sited on the Park/Golf Course.

[seanie]

Do PPAG have "members" as such?

Cos I don't think PFANS has "members" but rather a loose-ish affiliation of "supporters". If I'm a "member" I haven't been issued with a card, number, signed any application forms or paid any subs.

Although I have missed a few meetings.

[Porty]

I have never denied that I have concerns about building on green space, and in this respect I share PPAG's concern about the loss of Portobello Park/Golf Course as a green space -especially to housing. However I am not a "member" of PPAG, and have not signed up to anything which compromises my position on St John's school board.

You (or another Alison Connelly) signed the PPAG petition (Number 62) which is against building a school on the Park/Golf Course.
2 of the possible options in the Independent Consultants report have St John's being sited on the Park/Golf Course.

And one of the other options would mean a different school on the park. So in order for you not to be comprimised Alison, you would have to go for the other option which is Bingham. No, wait a minute that's building on a park too. And it has been ruled out by St Johns Board. So Alison that leaves you no options.

Which is a quandray for a member of a school board that wishes a new school and who , to quote you "genuinely want the best for the school" ?In the absence of any educational grounds I can only conclude that the reason John's School Board were suggesting Power League or Scottish Power is that you and perhaps one or two others will not compromise your PPAG position, that being the one that you signed up for. Correct?

Given your commitment to the PPAG cause and given that every desirable option open to St John's meant that the PPAG position was comprimised you were in a very difficult position . Perhaps you ought to have declared a vested interest and withdrawn from the process. Instead, you became the SJSB deputee who delivered the request for alternative sites, sites that are plainly not in the best interest of St Johns, and I would wager it was you that penned the SJSB letter to parents, which was riddled with pro-park spin, would I win?

[gilo]

You (or another Alison Connelly) signed the PPAG petition (Number 62) which is against building a school on the Park/Golf Course.
2 of the possible options in the Independent Consultants report have St John's being sited on the Park/Golf Course.

Here is the wording of the petition:
"We call upon the City of Edinburgh Council to consider and evaluate a full range of options and alternatives, cost comparisons and funding options for the re-provisioning of Portobello High School and St John’s Primary School. We oppose the use of Portobello Golf Course and Park for re-siting the schools and building houses on. This land belongs to the people of Edinburgh and should not be sold or built on until a full debate is had and all the options, including keeping the land for public recreation, have been fully consulted upon with people who use the facility, live or work in Portobello and Joppa."

Now I think Alison, or anyone who signed this petition could quite rightly argue that a full debate is currently taking place and residents have the opportunity to say how they want to use the "facility". They could therefore argue that there is no contradiction between signing this petition and then promoting building a school in the park.

[PortyMan]

Easter Road homes plan given the green light
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1512622006
Bob Alert
Plans to build houses on a bowling green!! Is nothing sacred? Where's next?
(Though it's nice to see Ewan's getting to build houses somewhere! )

No real connection with the school debate (though it does highlight the Cooncil's commitment to preserving 'green space', or lack therof - no doubt they'll replace it in Stirling or somewhere equally handy).

[Porty]

From the same article:

"Fionnuala Earley, Nationwide's group economist, said: "Edinburgh City remains the most expensive sub-region in Scotland.

"The average house price is 81 per cent higher than in the cheapest sub-region, Aberdeenshire and Moray.

"Edinburgh city is the only area in Scotland where the average price is above £200,000.

"It is a beautiful city and very good for employment especially with the financial services sector doing very well at the moment.

"There are always a lot of skilled workers coming into Edinburgh and that helps property growth continue. "

Yeah it seems like th council have really screwed Edinburgh up/

[Pal of Porty]

Easter Road homes plan given the green light
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1512622006
Bob Alert
Plans to build houses on a bowling green!! Is nothing sacred? Where's next?
(Though it's nice to see Ewan's getting to build houses somewhere! )

No real connection with the school debate (though it does highlight the Cooncil's commitment to preserving 'green space', or lack therof - no doubt they'll replace it in Stirling or somewhere equally handy).

There is no parallel at all here. This land is privately owned and they can do with it what they want consistent with the planning laws. The bowling population is ageing and dying off anyway.

[Dadaist]

An article from the 10th on the Meggetland development - arguments from both sides, so something for everyone to agree/disagree with :

http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1665532006

[Porty]

In finishing, I will state that in my experience, Meggetland was never used as much as has been bandied around in the press by the opponents of the new facility. Having spent 1000's of hours playing sport as a schoolboy and an adult and investing swathes of time into teaching and coaching at Meggetland, I found that often the group i was involved in would be the only one present in the huge expanse of land.

Well said Kevin I 100% agree, Meggatland was never well-used. Even by Alison Johnstone who jut ran round it.

What is missing from the article is how many pitches, sports areas remain. Anyone know?

[Charles]

Just a few thoughts for anyone interested in the Common Good Question:

PPAG’s legal opinion was provided by Roy Martin QC (Dean of the Faculty of Advocates)
He specialises in parliamentary, administrative, environmental and land law, in particular town and country planning and commercial landlord and tenant. He has acted for private developers, planning authorities and public utilities. He has appeared at inquiries and in applications for judicial review in relation to developments concerning minerals, retail, housing, leisure, waste, power generation, transport projects and others, and in matters related to compulsory acquisition. He has represented both landlords and tenants in relation to commercial property, and acted in the leading cases in Scotland on covenants to trade. He has appeared and advised in matters relating to the devolved institutions in Scotland and the incorporation into domestic law of the European Convention on Human Rights. He has appeared several times as leading counsel in the House of Lords.
His appointments include Chairman of the Scottish Planning Local Government and Environmental Bar Group 1991-1996;Affiliate of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland

As you can see from above, Roy Martin is well qualified to provide opinion on land issues and therefore his opinion regarding the fact that Portobello Park is Common Good Land is highly relevant to the Council’s current proposal to appropriate Portobello Park for the purpose of building schools.

It is also highly relevant that the law is such that Common Good Land cannot be used for statutory functions. Education is a statutory function.

At the Local Government and Transport Committee yesterday, Mr Wightman, an expert on common good land gave an excellent account of the abuses of common good land in Scotland. He gave Angus Council as an example of Best Practice as regards its handling of common good assets, and slated Edinburgh, giving as an example the £1 per annum rent they secured for Waverly shopping centre.

A petitioner at the Parliamentary Committee stated that Councillors are unaware of their responsibilities as trustees of the common good fund, or indeed of what the common good fund assets actually are. The petitioner sought to have the legislation of the old act updated to make sure that there was accountability, where presently there appears to be none. Essentially the petition is to make sure that existing law is enforced

The petitioner stated that the councils, nationwide, had a responsibility to list all of the assets, and map them so that people could see at a glance where the lands/buildings were and what other assets were and to have them re-assessed at todays prices so that the people could know what the assets were worth in monetary terms.

It is very unlikely that the City of Edinburgh Council will be able to progress with any proposal to build on Portobello Park without going through a very lengthy, very expensive, and potentially unsuccessful legal process.

[Porty]

Charles welcomes back. I’m glad you put this in the wider issues thread, as it is by no means certain that the park will be the chosen location. And we are a long way from, (if ever) establishing that Portobello Park is Common good land.

Just a few thoughts for anyone interested in the Common Good Question:

PPAG’s legal opinion was provided by Roy Martin QC (Dean of the Faculty of Advocates)
He specialises in parliamentary, administrative, environmental and land law, in particular town and country planning and commercial landlord and tenant. He has acted for private developers, planning authorities and public utilities. He has appeared at inquiries and in applications for judicial review in relation to developments concerning minerals, retail, housing, leisure, waste, power generation, transport projects and others, and in matters related to compulsory acquisition. He has represented both landlords and tenants in relation to commercial property, and acted in the leading cases in Scotland on covenants to trade. He has appeared and advised in matters relating to the devolved institutions in Scotland and the incorporation into domestic law of the European Convention on Human Rights. He has appeared several times as leading counsel in the House of Lords.
His appointments include Chairman of the Scottish Planning Local Government and Environmental Bar Group 1991-1996;Affiliate of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland

He is undoubtedly an experienced and laudable practitioner.

As you can see from above, Roy Martin is well qualified to provide opinion on land issues and therefore his opinion regarding the fact that Portobello Park is Common Good Land is highly relevant to the Council’s current proposal to appropriate Portobello Park for the purpose of building schools.

“His opinion regarding the fact???â€

[Pal of Porty]

It seems to me that that Common Good Land is anything but a straightforward issue and there are a myriad of factors that will be discussed and possibly even resolved. Irresepective of this outcome, my prediction is that it will not stop PHS or St. Johns being built in the Park/Golfie, if indeed either option is selected.

[Pal of Porty]

It is also highly relevant that the law is such that Common Good Land cannot be used for statutory functions. Education is a statutory function.

It may be highly relevant but it appears that it does not stop a school being built on CGL. Here is an extract from the BBC report:

Ministers have decided not to call in plans for a new school on common good land in Peebles. It means Scottish Borders Council can go ahead with rebuilding Kingsland Primary at Neidpath Grazings.

Common sense for the common good?

[Porty]

I guess PPAG would have to do a risk assesment prior to deciding whether or not to employ a QC, its an expensive business.

I have no idea what the relationship is between Roy Martin and PPAG, maybe he did them a one-off discount for an opinion? Its not beyond the realms of possibility that he did a favour and produced a general opinion that didn't commit him one way or another. We only have one excerpt from his opinion and its not exactly bulletproof. In fact it t is non-commital, "reasonable prospect" is far as he is prepared to go. He states that even if PP is CGL there woul only be limitations on the council, not a guarantee that they could not build a school.

Maybe he lives or has a fellow advocate buddy that lives in the Christians or Magdalene? I really don't know. In terms of cost a one-off opinion is different from several days in court. Opportunity cost and the advocates code of conduct would then come into play. I believe QC's have a collective agreement that fees must be charged in all cases.

Leaving that aside for a minute, lets assume that PPAG can afford a QC.

As this argument has unfolded I have been amazed how when someone makes a point, which is seemingly conclusive it produces a counterpoint or argument. It reminds me of Oscar Wilde's theory of motion.

What if PPAG were to go ahead with a legal challenge to claim that Portobelllo Park was Common Good Land and they lost.

What if they lose?

[seanie]

I’ve Googled a bit on “common goodâ€

[seanie]

It is also highly relevant that the law is such that Common Good Land cannot be used for statutory functions.

Is that the opinion of Roy Martin QC (Dean of the Faculty of Advocates) ?

Or yours?