New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[Porty]

Maka you don't have to take porty/seanie/bob word for it. I have evidence which I'm happy to PM you. And I have spoken to some shopkeepers . Meanwhile : ask yourself why Findlays and Mica took their posters down?

[Makaveli]

Send me a PM Porty.

I am out of the UK just now (and have been for three weeks) but will be back home next week to see what's going on for myself

[rmolehusband]

If you really believe that the vast majority of people in the community are for the new school being built on the park, why would shopkeepers be intimidated by 6 people? It doesn't stack up.

It does stack up if you care to think about it.
- Nobody has threatened to boycott if a shop doesn't put up a poster.
- PPAG threaten to boycott if a shop does put up a poster.

So, simple economics, if PPAG managed a boycott by even 10 people, which they might just about scrape, that would be noticeable to a business in the current economic climate and so worse that 'no boycott' option.

Personally, I wouldn't boycott a business for displaying a pro- or anti- poster, or no poster at all. Would you Betty, what is your view on boycotts?

[Porty]

You might just have to face up to the uncomfortable truth that many people are not as enthusiastic about building on open green space as you are. I think you are using your own standards to judge people (again). Many of us remember you going round the shops asking shopkeepers to take down the save the park posters.

I think you are imagining those posters. Which shops had them?

And isn't it fantastic how "many of you" can remember, were you all present?

[Porty]

So, simple economics, if PPAG managed a boycott by even 10 people, which they might just about scrape, that would be noticeable to a business in the current economic climate and so worse that 'no boycott' option.

And apart from that. Most shopkeepers don't know if PPAG are 6, 60 or 600 in number. It would be quite easy for someone to spook a trader by suggesting she has the clout to persuade a large group of locals not to shop in their establishment.

Personally, I wouldn't boycott a business for displaying a pro- or anti- poster, or no poster at all.

I believe 99.9% of people would agree with you. And consider how mental Ros Sutherlan'ds accusation about PFAN's is? (still no apology). How do you think you'd get on pitching up at a shop and saying "put this poster up or we will boycot you". I'd report it to the police. Mainly to witness the police report at PCC. Imagine the Copper reporting there had been a sort of protection racket purveyed on the high street.

[Porty]

Send me a PM Porty.

:

Done, not sent you any added dialogue, its self-explanatory.

[wangi]

Betty, having spent an hour on the High St on Saturday with the "drop the appeal" petition and leaflets it was very clear what the majority want. They want the new High School built, and they want it built now. It was fantastic to talk to folk who aren't online and get the same clear support, to get the same frustration at what PPAG are doing.

Only one lady didn't sign the petition - she was adamant a new school should be built on Rosefield Park!

L/

[Makaveli]

Got it. Thanks for that.

[Pal of Porty]

How would you know this PoP, when was the last time you had a civil word to say to them, or any word for that matter..

I had a civil conversation with Dave Connelly in a bar called Whigham's a few Sundays ago.

[rmolehusband]

Betty, having spent an hour on the High St on Saturday with the "drop the appeal" petition and leaflets it was very clear what the majority want.

Don't go confusing Betty with facts now, rememeber...

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!

I note from Ros "build it on any other green space" Sutherland's piece on STV local that their own estimate of PPAG support has been pegged back again to "a group of more than 100 people". Using PPAG maths that's about 25% of the community.

[Pal of Porty]

I think calling people liars is out of order and unfair. They are merely stating what they believe will happen. How can that be lies?

Stating what someone believes may happen is an opinion and therefore not necessarily a lie but can be in some in cirmcumstances, especially if the opinion is ignoring hard facts. For example, scaremongering by stating that houses are going on the golf course even though it is common good land. I was however particularly referring to specific numerous lies and misrepresenations that PPAG have spouted and continue to spout. The most recent one for example is the one I quoted above:

The Council were the only party who asked the courts for an early appeal date and not PPAG. PFANS have gone on record to say that PPAG were helpful in assisting this but it is totally incorrect to say that PPAG asked for this early appeal as their spokesperson mentioned to the BBC. Dress it up how you want but I call this a lie.

[Porty]

Sean- what's happening with the Emergency PCC meeting? must be running out of time.

[Porty]

Only one lady didn't sign the petition - she was adamant a new school should be built on Rosefield Park!

L/

Jean Douglas (PPAG Matriarch) suggested Rosefield Park for St John's, wonder if it was her?

[Pal of Porty]

Further to my last post here is an extract from today's EEN:

"A spokeswoman for the city council said: “It is astonishing that PPAG are now apparently claiming that they requested, and secured, the early appeal. Whilst we acknowledge that neither our request for an early appeal hearing nor the proposed dates were opposed by counsel acting for PPAG, the motion seeking urgent disposal of the appeal was instigated by the council.”

The court records will show this to be the case and PPAG are caught out yet again.

QED

[rmolehusband]

The court records will show this to be the case and PPAG are caught out yet again.

For clarification of your above query Betty, in this example PPAG's claim is a lie rather than an opinion.

[Porty]

However, PPAG member Diana Cairns claimed that it was the group’s legal team which had secured the early date for the appeal.

Oh dear. Surely cannae be long now?

[Porty]

I'm at a loss

You finally got something right.

[Bob Jefferson]

What scurrilous rumours are you peddling now?
This is bo**ocks and you know it. I turn my back for 5 minutes!

Many of us remember you going round the shops asking shopkeepers to take down the save the park posters.

You really are charming, aren't you? A really classy lady. So, this latest allegation. What posters? Which shops? What evidence do you have of this? I can't recall any shop ever displaying a PPAG poster. Admit it, you just made this entire story up. Produce the evidence or retract your nasty allegation and issue me with an unconditional apology.

[Bob Jefferson]

When are you going to learn Betty? You can't just go around making stuff up. And neither can your PPAG friends. Produce the evidence or apologise.

[Mark Cameron]

If you really believe that the vast majority of people in the community are for the new school being built on the park

I do believe this based on a couple of things. Speaking to people and the strength of feeling and number of votes on the polls I've seen.

If the majority of the community are supporting PPAG (as claimed by PPAG) where are they making themselves heard Betty? Bottom line they're not - because they aren't out there.

The community council should represent the strength of feeling in the community and as a body they're clearly not prepared to do that on this issue (Or haven't been so far!). You've got to question why that might be. If you're right and it's because the majority of the community are actually with PPAG on this issue then i think that will be demonstrated at the cc emergency meeting. I suspect that's not going to be the case though.

[Puerto bella]

I hope Ian Rankin is following this thread - plenty of new food for thought and Rebus likes a trip to Porty.
No seriously, its all gone a bit mental has it not ? Some people have strong views, some less so - but the constant mud slinging isnt really doing anyone any good. Sometimes no consensus is only option but a level of decorum from all parties would be desirable - and a truce has been suggested by someone on here, I think?
I would suggest, not that any of you ever listen to me but for what its worth, that some independent person unconnected with Portobello and the council should be present to step in at this extraordinary meeting to assist by chairing it if need be......perhaps someone from an adjoining local authority area, a minister, a mediator, I dont know - someone other than someone from Portobello?

[Porty]

Did someone say something?






Just kidding PB. Excellent idea about a neutral chair.
It used to be mud slinging but we've moved on to patties new. People are rightly angered by the vindictive appeal. and by the false accusation made about PFAN's.

[Bob Jefferson]

I agree as well PB and believe such a move has been suggested by PFANS supporters but was rejected.

[Porty]

Really- on what grounds?

[Puerto bella]

I hate to say it but have to: why not park that for now Bob and Stephen and focus on the next stage of the appeal, your faith in the courts and a constructive CC meeting where everyone gets to air their views - timeslots alloted if need be, genuine rules of engagement and getting it all across in a constructive manner?
I fear that all this sparing with Betty on here will only serve to those who like a battle taking a battle stance and those who shirk from it retreating into their shells - leave that to the Advocates in the court - they dont have to live here? The calmer this all comes across the more impact it will have at the meeting.

[Bob Jefferson]

I suppose that such a request might be seen as questioning the impartiality and integrity of the Chair. Personally, if I were the Chair, I think I might be quite happy for someone else to take this gig.

[rmolehusband]

Really- on what grounds?

On the grounds that the chair is in their pocket, possibly?
Good suggestion though, PB.

With regards to mudslinging, I think you're way off the mark though.

[Bob Jefferson]

I hate to say it but have to: why not park that for now Bob and Stephen

Park it? But it was your idea!

I fear that all this sparing with Betty on here will only serve to those who like a battle taking a battle stance and those who shirk from it retreating into their shells - leave that to the Advocates in the court - they dont have to live here? The calmer this all comes across the more impact it will have at the meeting.

I quite agree, but when Betty makes a damaging accusation like that it has to be challenged, otherwise people might believe it has some credence. And Ros Sutherland's email went out to people like Kenny MacAskill. We can't just let that go.

[Epykat]

y Epykat » Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:10 pm

Bob Jefferson wrote:
For the sake of our children, please boycott the calendar.

Epykat wrote: You are joking, right? What happens if I buy 10 - do the kids all self destruct?.

Be honest Bob, you do have previous....

[Epykat]

I hate to say it but have to: why not park that for now Bob and Stephen and focus on the next stage of the appeal, your faith in the courts and a constructive CC meeting where everyone gets to air their views - timeslots alloted if need be, genuine rules of engagement and getting it all across in a constructive manner?
I fear that all this sparing with Betty on here will only serve to those who like a battle taking a battle stance and those who shirk from it retreating into their shells - leave that to the Advocates in the court - they dont have to live here? The calmer this all comes across the more impact it will have at the meeting.

Great post PB. The whole thing is getting a bit hysterical and you're beginning to not see the wood for the trees. Get over it. Grow up. Let the court have the final say.

[Puerto bella]

I just had to get 'park it' in somewhere - come on....give me some slack

The difficulty here though is that both sides in this debate believe they are entirely correct in what they say.
There is no wriggle room and you'll never agree - where do you go with that - on and on forever, justifying what you believe to be correct ?
Neither side will back down, they clearly are too passionate about their side of the argument.
Yes, on one hand people can come back with - but its a democratic decision, its for the greater good, there are 1400 children needing a new school but equally the other side will say - we have a right to challenge and we'll use it.
The sooner we get a decision from the Inner House the better - but what then....are we going to be having this conversation about a Supreme Court challenge when the Inner House agrees with Lady Dorrian?
Knowing when to give up is the hardest thing for any challenger.

[Bob Jefferson]

Be honest Bob, you do have previous....

Is that all you have? What does 'boycott the calendar' mean? It means don't buy the calendar. Does it mean 'boycott shops stocking the calendar'? No. Did any shops actually stock the calendar?

But we're not talking about a calendar in any case. Betty made a very specific allegation. She has been asked to provide evidence of this allegation. Back to sifting through those search results I'm afraid. It could be a long night.

[Puerto bella]

Stop - Bob and go and watch tv, listen to the radio, do something else please - I presume she's just winding you up.

[Bob Jefferson]

OK mum. But she started it.

[Puerto bella]

She's a naughty girl, 5 mins off her golden time.