New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 31 Oct 2006, 18:37

I don't accept your argument. Taking two sentences out of context is not convincing.

The above statement doesn't just cover increased usage of the park it also relates to the paucity of the eniromental experience fot the children at the existing building. There are no cornflake chokers to be seen.

I do accept that the idea of building on a green space would not generally be consistent with the true meaning of environmental justice but this is a micro-situation and the PFANS response is tailored accordingly, as it ought to be.

We have a strange "green" issue here. The "green" elected reps, msp's and so on have not spoken up against the proposal neither have the Scottish Sports Council nor the Playing Fields Association. They are normally pretty vocal on issues like this.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 19:32

I didn't seek to convince you or anyone - I was telling you what my opinion was.

It's up to each of us to come to our own conclusions, after reading this passage through the prism of our own bias.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 31 Oct 2006, 23:11

The accepted definition of sustainable development is "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

The Scottish Executive definition is;

"Sustainable development is about combining economic progress with social and environmental justice."

The term "environmental justice" refers to quite a broad concept, certainly not limited to issues of green space, but it is a phrase with a particular meaning. It's fundamentally to do with quality of life and the ideal that everyone has a right to a high quality environment, be it working, living or recreational.

Within that meaning I think it's entirely reasonable to argue that Option B, and for that matter Option C, offer the prospect of far better outcomes in terms of environmental justice than Option A.

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 31 Oct 2006, 23:27

Taken from Friends of the Earth website
"Environmental justice means:

Quality of life for all
Everyone should have a safe and healthy place to live, work and play.
Enough for us - and the future
We need to make sure there are enough resources for all of us and future generations."

I'd say that fits well with B and C.

If the school does get the go ahead for the park, the issue for me then is that the golf course doesn't fit so well with the above and this is where I disagree with Lawrence Marshall. I would like to see the rest of the park as just that, open well used, well designed parkland.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 31 Oct 2006, 23:40

Ah. Cynical, then - not idiotic.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 31 Oct 2006, 23:50

gilo wrote:If the school does get the go ahead for the park, the issue for me then is that the golf course doesn't fit so well with the above and this is where I disagree with Lawrence Marshall. I would like to see the rest of the park as just that, open well used, well designed parkland.

Interesting point. Option C was the tactical vote - a school in the park while saving the golf course. If we get this, then I'm happy. But the icing on the cake, as far as I'm concerned, would be to re-locate the golf course and to create in its place a much more valuable green space, designed by and for the community. And yes, I see this in terms of environmental justice.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 31 Oct 2006, 23:57

Neither.

The PFANS response is one to an official consultation.

The people who it's principally addressed to are the Council. Not necessarily Councillors. Precious few of them are going to wade through all the consultation responses any more than most of the public are. The Councillors are going to rely primarily on a report from Council officers, summarising the issues and taking on board responses to the consultation.

And whilst many people will quite understandably not be attuned to the phrase "environmental justice" those Council officers should be because it's part of policy guidance that underpins much of their working framework. They should be able to grasp the point that's being made.

That some might not recognise how the phrase "environmental justice" is being used doesn't warrant charges of idiocy or cynicism.

The argument may be wrong but it is sincere. And it's best addressed by attacking the substance of the argument.

Rather than the character of those who propose it.

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

Thanks for that sideways feedback - if you're going to say something to me seanie, it's best addressed by actually saying it to me!

You're not really the one to propose how "best" I approach this document as I have been responding to Porty's request that I read it.

I wonder if it would make you happier if I revised my approach by saying that the argument is a cynical one, as opposed to saying that the person(s) who wrote it is/are cynic(s), clarification now having helped me remove any charge of idiocy in either character or substance. Would it?

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 01 Nov 2006, 00:23

Dadaist wrote:Thanks for that sideways feedback - if you're going to say something to me seanie, it's best addressed by actually saying it to me!

I think I just did.

You're not really the one to propose how "best" I approach this document as I have been responding to Porty's request that I read it.

If you think it's "best" to attack the character of the people putting forward an argument you disagree with, rather than the argument itself, that's entirely up to you. I was telling you what my opinion was. It's up to each of us to come to our own conclusions.

I wonder if it would make you happier if I revised my approach by saying that the argument is a cynical one, as opposed to saying that the person(s) who wrote it is/are cynic(s), clarification now having helped me remove any charge of idiocy in either character or substance. Would it?

Given the meaning of the word cynical I'd say not.

Of course I'm open to an explanation as to how the argument could be cynical but those who made it sincere, but I'd be suprised if it was convincing.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Nov 2006, 01:12

seanie wrote: It's up to each of us to come to our own conclusions.

That's exactly right.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Nov 2006, 09:38

Dadaist wrote:
seanie wrote: It's up to each of us to come to our own conclusions.
That's exactly right.

I hate it when you won't let me give you one of my conclusions to come to. Its not fair.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Nov 2006, 09:42

seanie wrote: If you think it's "best" to attack the character of the people putting forward an argument you disagree with, rather than the argument itself, that's entirely up to you.

Beautifully put. I have been struggling to come up with those words for months. Sometimes all that's available to those on the opposite side of an argument is to attack the character or style of the opponent rather than the fabric or substance of their argument. Must have happened to me 50 or 60 times on this thread alone.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Nov 2006, 09:52

I think it's called an "ad hominem" argument.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Nov 2006, 10:10

Dadaist wrote:I think it's called an "ad hominem" argument.

Yeah, but you are just in this for the money.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 01 Nov 2006, 10:10

Dadaist wrote:I think it's called an "ad hominem" argument.

Yeah, but you are just in this for the money.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Nov 2006, 10:14

Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:I think it's called an "ad hominem" argument.
Yeah, but you are just in this for the money.

Rats. You found me out. I knew the family ties to McChuckemup sustainable development would be my downfall. It's back to the Belize scam for me.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 01 Nov 2006, 11:42

Children, children...this thread about schools and playground space doesn't have to be conducted as though we're in one. Mind your manners, folks, or I'll get my big stick out.

BB

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 01 Nov 2006, 20:48

Iâ€™m not a spokesperson for PFANS, although I am one of the militant, sneering, cynical, acolytes involved in the consultation response. My personal opinion on the issue of â€œenvironmental justiceâ€

Tess@Porty · Post by **Tess@Porty** » 01 Nov 2006, 21:07

seanie wrote:

And whilst many people will quite understandably not be attuned to the phrase "environmental justice" those Council officers should be because it's part of policy guidance that underpins much of their working framework. They should be able to grasp the point that's being made.

It's touching to see so much faith being placed in Council officials. Not just that they will understand the subtext of the submission but that they will adhere to Council policy.
Although one could argue that sticking to Current policy would result in maintaining existing green space, not building on it.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 01 Nov 2006, 22:25

seanie wrote: The golf course would have to be relocated

It's a good job it would *have* to (your words) as the consultation response goes to some length, including a bit of mild Monbiot misrepresentation, in setting out the case for its extermination.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 01 Nov 2006, 22:44

The intention was not to make a case for exterminating he golf course.

The point trying to be made may be moot since the continued provision of a golf course would almost certainly be a prerequisite in terms of planning. But we felt that, on occasion, the ecological merits off the golf course had been exaggerated and we wanted to counter that.

Whilst golf courses may be green they are not particularly â€˜Greenâ€™, whoever uses them.

Theyâ€™re large areas of land that typically have a low level of use, whilst consuming significant resources, including regular dosing with chemicals. Thatâ€™s not to say they donâ€™t have value, but they do have limited ecological value. Whatever other merits they possess they are not rich bio-diverse natural habitats. Thatâ€™s the point the PFANS submission was trying to emphasise.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 01 Nov 2006, 22:49

Tess@Porty wrote:It's touching to see so much faith being placed in Council officials.

Touching faith and sneering cynicism simultaneously combined.

That's multi-tasking.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 00:42

seanie wrote: Theyâ€™re large areas of land that typically have a low level of use, whilst consuming significant resources, including regular dosing with chemicals. Thatâ€™s not to say they donâ€™t have value, but they do have limited ecological value. Whatever other merits they possess they are not rich bio-diverse natural habitats. Thatâ€™s the point the PFANS submission was trying to emphasise.

And did emphasise fairly and factually.

Much has been made of how far away the new golf course is from the existing course (1.7km). I invite those who are semi-hysterical about that distance to have a look at the map of the conurbation when the council bought the land in 1898 and when it opened as a course in 1908. PGC was not in the centre of the community and there were no cars. Whether the measure of justice is environmentl, social, economical, educational or sporting, there is no justification for a golf course at the heart of the portobello community.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 00:48

Tess@Porty wrote:[It's touching to see so much faith being placed in Council officials. Not just that they will understand the subtext of the submission but that they will adhere to Council policy.
Although one could argue that sticking to Current policy would result in maintaining existing green space, not building on it.

I'm assuming you are "one" that could argue. Can you publish that policy in full so i may gauge the validity of your assertion. From recollection you are subjugating the policy and as a result inadvertently mis-representing. I may be wrong?

Faith is a difficult badge to earn and even more difficult to hold, I know you are a newbie, and welcome, this is your big chance.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 01:22

Porty wrote:Whether the measure of justice is environmentl, social, economical, educational or sporting, there is no justification for a golf course at the heart of the portobello community.

This is the kind of tyranny which has annoyed me from the start because of the way it's being applied.

Before this land was needed, nobody peeped about the golf course and it was the sort of nice thing that nobody had a real problem with. It was the sort of thing that people would have campaigned to keep - and under a different kind of threat I might have supported them.

If the land was a blank canvas - unused or brownfield or re-zoned or gifted or whatever, and we were facing a straight choice of what to build, you'd be quite right Porty. However, that land was in use as a golf course before the schools plan turned everything on its head.

All of a sudden, what I thought was a golf course turned out to be drawn not in permanent marker but in pencil, with some very eager hands clutching some rather righteous rubbers, all set to draw a school in its place.

Again, fine. I'm not fighting to defend the golf course, not really, it's the after the fact use of language which gets my hackles up. Forcing something which hadn't done anything wrong other than exist to suddenly justify its own existence or face extinction is, in my opinion, wrong when the forced justification is pre-judged to suit an existing agenda - in this case either the initial council plan where the land was needed for housing, or the option which places the new school on the course.

To my mind it's a bit like making someone who had served faithfully in a job for decades re-apply for their own position under a barrage of criticism - again, perhaps justifiable except in the case that you had first made up your mind that you wanted their desk for something else.

I measure PFANS by their attitude not to the great school they campaign for but to the land and people they seek to usurp - and this attitude has shown itself now as righteous, sneering and altogether cynical.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 01:29

Porty wrote:
Tess@Porty wrote:[It's touching to see so much faith being placed in Council officials. Not just that they will understand the subtext of the submission but that they will adhere to Council policy.
Although one could argue that sticking to Current policy would result in maintaining existing green space, not building on it.
I'm assuming you are "one" that could argue. Can you publish that policy in full so i may gauge the validity of your assertion. From recollection you are subjugating the policy and as a result inadvertently mis-representing. I may be wrong?

Faith is a difficult badge to earn and even more difficult to hold, I know you are a newbie, and welcome, this is your big chance.

Tess - he's right. Even the person who stood up at the town hall meeting and said she had read lots of planning law for her college course and couldn't see anything other than "preserve green space" made an inadvertent misrepresentation.

When you look at local plans, although they do say that green space is to be preserved, they also say something like "unless there is a pressing reason" to build on them.

This is a bit pressing, really.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 01:43

seanie wrote:The intention was not to make a case for exterminating he golf course.

The point trying to be made may be moot since the continued provision of a golf course would almost certainly be a prerequisite in terms of planning. But we felt that, on occasion, the ecological merits off the golf course had been exaggerated and we wanted to counter that.

Whilst golf courses may be green they are not particularly â€˜Greenâ€™, whoever uses them.

Theyâ€™re large areas of land that typically have a low level of use, whilst consuming significant resources, including regular dosing with chemicals. Thatâ€™s not to say they donâ€™t have value, but they do have limited ecological value. Whatever other merits they possess they are not rich bio-diverse natural habitats. Thatâ€™s the point the PFANS submission was trying to emphasise.

Well, intentions are wonderful but what you published reads like a pre-emptive strike, a veritable crusade. 3.4 is probably the most crass thing I've read during this entire debate.

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 02 Nov 2006, 09:55

My, my, we are all sensitive sould aren't we?

Porty wrote:
PortyMan wrote: You might wish to observe that in the past week the posters have been:
Porty, Marya, Bob, Soupdragon, Seanie, Bellybabe, Pal of Porty, Gilo, Dadist and Alison!
If you are trying to say that the debate on POL is between a small number of indivduals, I agree, the greater majority of the community are either apathetic or think a school on the park is a done deal. Which is a great pity.

PortyMan wrote: I have also conducted a survey of PHS pupils and parents and, with a 100% response rate of those polled, received 100% support for Option A. So I win! Statistics eh? Who do you believe!? :wink

Who do I believe? Well one survey was conducted with all of the pupils, teachers and parents at PHS and was overseen by the school board and the Head who I know are honest and honorable people.

The other survey was carried out on persons and numbers unknown by a proven fantasist whose track record includes leafleting his neighbours with false and misleading information.

Its a no-brainer who to believe.

PortyMan wrote: I've set my timer to see how long this post lasts...

Posts don't get deleted just beacuse they are puerile.

In turn,

Yes I was... and it still is. Largely because whenever anyone tries to get involved they are hounded them off with aggressive demands to provide full details, authorised and notarised evidence, blood samples and the like (see response to Tess@...). I do feel if PFANS had focussed on their positive arguments (they do have a couple) instead of attacking PPAG and their supporters for wanting to keep the Park they might have gained wider support (and more interest).

The support for 'not building on the park' was (and is) much greater than the support 'for a school on the park'. However, keeping the park is way down on the council's (well, Mr Jobson's) list of priorities... Political expediency and budget considerations are considerably higher. The debate may be rather pointless (as I inferred in February, council officials have already made their minds up) but I await further developments with interest. At the end of the day (PFANS pony-ride fantasy aside) this is about providing a couple of (fenced-off) football pitches for the school (everything else is achievable on the current site).

2)
The 'survey' point (Bob, you must have missed this - attacking me for 'not adding value' to the debate was a laugh. Have you read this thread?) was that Porty has published percentages... Which sound very impressive until you realise they are based on a sample of 7, or 159, or 422 or whatever. Based on those 'eligible to respond' (well, you all love Thatcher, don't you?) the 89% suddenly becomes ? 56%? 32? 3? Who knows? We don't, because Mr McIntegrity chooses to only reveal percentages. Honesty and honourableness don't come in to it, after all I wouldn't want to say he was attempting to mislead...? (And I wouldn't be allowed to, though he can say such about me, apparently?) After all Gallup and the like always publish 'based on' figures.

3)
The timer ticked up 2.5 hours before I was moderated rather than deleted. But, puerility is in the eye of the beholder...
Though I have had to laugh at Mr McIntegrity's comments on personal abuse...

Seanie wrote:

If you think it's "best" to attack the character of the people putting forward an argument you disagree with, rather than the argument itself, that's entirely up to you.

MrMcIntegrity wrote:Beautifully put. I have been struggling to come up with those words for months. Sometimes all that's available to those on the opposite side of an argument is to attack the character or style of the opponent rather than the fabric or substance of their argument. Must have happened to me 50 or 60 times on this thread alone

Ah well, back to the real world...

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 10:02

Hey Portyman, you never got back to me with what my label was. What's my label?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 10:42

PortyMan wrote:....At the end of the day (PFANS pony-ride fantasy aside) this is about providing a couple of (fenced-off) football pitches for the school (everything else is achievable on the current site). ...

Everything else is not achievable on the current site.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 11:14

Dadaist wrote: Forcing something which hadn't done anything wrong other than exist to suddenly justify its own existence or face extinction is, in my opinion, wrong

Your opinion may be correct, I dont disagree. However, its a bit irrelevant as at no point in this debate has PGC faced extinction.

Dadaist wrote: To my mind it's a bit like making someone who had served faithfully in a job for decades re-apply for their own position under a barrage of criticism - again, perhaps justifiable except in the case that you had first made up your mind that you wanted their desk for something else.

To my mind its like being offered promotion to a brand new facility and you can write your own job description. And on top of that you get to have a feeling of great personal fulfilment as you have at the same time benefitted the greater community. Put this into perspective, its a request to move 1.7Km and 96% of users arrive by car.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 11:21

Relevant or not, that's the suggestion in the PFANS document.

That's not promotion to a brand new facility - in 3.4 they suggest not building a replacement golf course at all, which is a P45.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 02 Nov 2006, 11:30

Had it not been for the debate as to where the new schools should be sited, then I don't imagine that anyone would be even considering moving the Golf Course. And of course, if we decide upon Option C then there is no requirement to do so. However, since the idea has arisen and the opportunity exists to re-locate then I think that we should at least look at the possibility.

It is not a question of the Golf Course having to justify its existence, rather it is an exercise in making the best use of available resources. Nothing has a divine right to remain in the same place for ever. Situations change, priorities change and what is right for one generation isn't necessarily right for another.

My own feeling is that we could make better use of this green space and it could offer greater value to a larger section of the community at little cost and probably long-term advantage of the golfers.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 02 Nov 2006, 11:31

Portyman, once agiain you resort to a personal attack, as you either will not but most likely cannot engage in a factual, rationale or substantive discussion. (I'll add that one on to my 50 or 60.)

You seek a world where misleading, inaccurate or deliberately untruthful statements go unchallenged. You've come to the wrong place.

Tess has been asked once to back up its statement, which ought to be pretty easy to do as its statement is on council policy, which is written down.

You describe Tess as being hounded and my attitude to it as aggressive, which is interesting, as you appear to already know it doesn't have an answer. I would prefer to give it the opportunity to justify its assertion.

I note your observations on the PHS survey and that you have still to provide and numbers or source for your own 100% for Option A survey.

I'm still laughing at your "more support for saving the park than building a school on it" I would ask what you base that assertion on but I know you don't do answers.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 02 Nov 2006, 11:38

Bob Jefferson wrote:It is not a question of the Golf Course having to justify its existence, rather it is an exercise in making the best use of available resources.

The PFANS consultation response justifies the golf course out of existence.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Re: Self-Abuse?

Re: Self-Abuse?