New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 21 Apr 2006, 12:46

Dadaist wrote:Whose public meeting was the fact that the land wasn't gifted announced at, and who by?

The meeting was last night's Public Meeting in St Mark's, organised by the Save the Park group. Councillor Perry gave the information in response to a question from a member of the public.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 21 Apr 2006, 12:49

Dave Connelly wrote:....I believe that the land was gifted....

You are most definitely entitled to believe what you wish but I think you will find that this particular belief is not founded on reality. Was it you that contributed this 'belief' to the Save Portobello Park leaflet?

Dave Connelly wrote:They are definately backtracking in a major style, starting the "consultation process"...

Backtracking! To me it sounds like they have been listening to what people have said and then done something about it. I think a consultation process is a good idea.

PS Thanks for the double spacing

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 21 Apr 2006, 12:52

Marya wrote:The meeting was last night's Public Meeting in St Mark's, organised by the Save the Park group. Councillor Perry gave the information in response to a question from a member of the public.

Although the information has been available and accessable to anyone who cared to look for a long, long time now.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 21 Apr 2006, 13:06

Pal of Porty wrote:
Marya wrote:The meeting was last night's Public Meeting in St Mark's, organised by the Save the Park group. Councillor Perry gave the information in response to a question from a member of the public.
Although the information has been available and accessable to anyone who cared to look for a long, long time now.

Along with the info about all the feu stuff, yes. This seems to be the cry of the pro-plan posse doesn't it - attack on grounds of poor research.

Do you think they lied on their leaflet on purpose?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 21 Apr 2006, 13:17

From today's 'Evening News':

Three sites on shortlist for Portobello school

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 21 Apr 2006, 13:24

Marya wrote:From today's 'Evening News':

Three sites on shortlist for Portobello school

Hurrah!! The council are listening and modifying their approach.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 21 Apr 2006, 13:28

Can someone from the pro-plan posse answer :

Do you think the antis lied on their leaflet on purpose?

Who asked the question of Cllr Perry and what was the wording of the question?

Dagnammit - I'm miffed I missed that one. Could have brought my camera and everything.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 21 Apr 2006, 13:29

Dadaist wrote:Do you think they lied on their leaflet on purpose?

I do not even know who 'they' are - never mind about their motives and I could not care less what drove them to put particular bits of information in a leaflet. Ultimately, I am more concerned about individuals having accuarate information on which to base their decision.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 21 Apr 2006, 13:37

Can someone from the pro-plan posse *who is accusing the antis of lying* please answer :

Do you think the antis lied on their leaflet on purpose?

also :

Who asked the question of Cllr Perry and what was the wording of the question?

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 21 Apr 2006, 13:38

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 21 Apr 2006, 13:39

PoP wrote:I am more concerned about individuals having accuarate information on which to base their decision.

Absolutely. Did you know that the land wasn't a gift before Cllr Perry said so at the meeting?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 21 Apr 2006, 13:43

Dadaist wrote:Can someone from the pro-plan posse *who is accusing the antis of lying* please answer :

Do you think the antis lied on their leaflet on purpose?

Pal of Porty has already answered your question.

Who asked the question of Cllr Perry and what was the wording of the question?

A chap who is (was?) a Portobello Parks Action Group supporter. Don't know his name and can't remember the exact wording.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 21 Apr 2006, 13:44

Dadaist wrote:Absolutely. Did you know that the land wasn't a gift before Cllr Perry said so at the meeting?

Yes I did know.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 21 Apr 2006, 13:46

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 21 Apr 2006, 13:50

Pal of Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Absolutely. Did you know that the land wasn't a gift before Cllr Perry said so at the meeting?
Yes I did know.

How long have you know for and how did you find out?

Stephen - you have accused the antis of lying on their leaflet. Do you or anyone else from the pro-plan posse think they did so on purpose?

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 21 Apr 2006, 13:51

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 21 Apr 2006, 13:53

Alison Connelly wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Can someone from the pro-plan posse answer :
Who asked the question of Cllr Perry and what was the wording of the question?

I can't remember the exact wording of the question regarding the common good.

That wasn't the question that Cllr Perry answered by explaining that the council had purchased the land Alison. If you remember, it was an earlier question by a man who questioned the morality of using gifted land or something along those lines

On the subject of 'common good' I can think of no better example of it than than the building of two new schools for the community.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 21 Apr 2006, 13:57

Alison - do you think the meeting was hijacked by the pro-plan posse?

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 21 Apr 2006, 13:59

Alison Connelly wrote: Talking about lies, I find the following extract from the article in the Evening News a sad indication of the way in which PFANS are willing to twist reality to suit their selfish aims

"But another group - Portobello Parents for New Schools - said that the views of only a small minority in the community were put forward at the meeting, with the majority of those in attendance being elderly local residents. "

How is that twisting reality Alison?

And how is promoting two new schools, a new golf course and a new, improved park selfish?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 21 Apr 2006, 14:08

Marya wrote:
Alison Connelly wrote: Talking about lies, I find the following extract from the article in the Evening News a sad indication of the way in which PFANS are willing to twist reality to suit their selfish aims

"But another group - Portobello Parents for New Schools - said that the views of only a small minority in the community were put forward at the meeting, with the majority of those in attendance being elderly local residents. "
How is that twisting reality Alison?

And how is promoting two new schools, a new golf course and a new, improved park selfish?

10/10 for crassness and irony, Marya. You're almost at the top of a very bad class.

You ask somebody how they define twisting reality and then twist it yourself in your next sentence!!!!

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 21 Apr 2006, 14:24

Dadaist wrote: 10/10 for crassness and irony, Marya. You're almost at the top of a very bad class.

Whilst you Dadaist are in a class all of your own.

Isn't that fencepost you're balancing on not really beginning to hurt now?

I really think you should be attending these public meetings to learn the facts for yourself.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 21 Apr 2006, 14:53

Alison Connelly wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Do you think they lied on their leaflet on purpose?
Is it really a lie, or is a matter that requires clarification?]

Alison, can you clarify if Ian Perry told you that there would be an Â£18m shortfall?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 21 Apr 2006, 14:53

Marya wrote:
Dadaist wrote: 10/10 for crassness and irony, Marya. You're almost at the top of a very bad class.

Whilst you Dadaist are in a class all of your own.

Isn't that fencepost you're balancing on not really beginning to hurt now?

I really think you should be attending these public meetings to learn the facts for yourself.

Who said I was sitting on the fence? I've made it clear from the start that I support the plan. Some of the tactics and utterances from both sides make me wish I was on the fence though.

I am upset that I wasn't at this meeting. Did you heckle at this one too?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 21 Apr 2006, 14:56

Stephen! At last.

With respect to the "gift" lie you accused the antis of earlier - do you think in that instance that they lied on purpose?

Also, how long have you known that the land wasn't a gift for?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 21 Apr 2006, 15:08

Alison Connelly wrote:Is it really a lie, or is a matter that requires clarification?

Either way it should not have been put on a publication for public distribution.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 21 Apr 2006, 15:20

Dadaist wrote:Who said I was sitting on the fence? I've made it clear from the start that I support the plan. Some of the tactics and utterances from both sides make me wish I was on the fence though.

I am upset that I wasn't at this meeting. Did you heckle at this one too?

Have you signed the PFANS petition then? Think you probably know where to find it.....*don't want to start another outbreak of website links*

I didn't heckle

, though I may have shown some disapproval when a woman suggested that the senior management team at PHS was 'cool' on the idea of two smaller schools being built as this would have an adverse affect on their salaries

I might add that the Chair of the meeting, Ros Sutherland did a very good job IMO.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 21 Apr 2006, 15:21

Dadaist wrote:How long have you know for and how did you find out?

I have known for quite a wee while now as I took the trouble to dig out the relevant deed. It was very enlightening but difficult to understand in the level of 'legal' detail that is likely to be required for this debate. It does however shed light quite clearly in some areas e.g contradicts some of the information in the Save Portobello Park leaflet.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 21 Apr 2006, 15:26

Dadaist wrote: Stephen! At last.

With respect to the "gift" lie you accused the antis of earlier - do you think in that instance that they lied on purpose?

Firstly, i did not accuse anyone of lying, I identifed the following statement as being a lie:

Save Portobello Park Leaflet wrote: Portobello Park was gifted to the people of Portobello in 1890.

Having said that, It beggars belief that someone could make the above statement, having read the 1890 disposition. We don't know who authored the leaflet and only they can tell us on what basis they made the statement?

Dadaist wrote:Also, how long have you known that the land wasn't a gift for?

I attended a meeting on Mar 22nd, the day Alison Connelly infers that Ian Perry told her personally that there would be an Â£18m shortfall.

At the meeting a lady spoke out about "walking on a dead man's grave" and spinning a story about a benevolent philanthropist donating the land to the community. Keeping an open mind I decided to investigate the matter further. Since that time i have become more and more clear about the land transactions and their implications. In my view whoever authored the leaflet obvioulsy did not bother with any investigation.

You obvioulsy have not seen the leaflet, the claim about the 1890 agreement is by no means the only falsehood.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 21 Apr 2006, 16:16

Dave Connelly wrote: ... I believe that the land was gifted, then when the council wanted to build the freightliner depot on the original golf course, (no surprise there), they had to then buy other nearby land (present site) for Â£25000 to compensate.

Personally speaking I feel that the current proposal from the council is forward thinking. However, if what Dave Connely says is true? And I am assuming he has checked it out thoroughly. This piece of news is nothing short of astonishing.

Back in the late 1800's the councill decided to build a freightliner terminal. Yet Freightliner was a concept to transport containers which were not developed until well after the 2nd world war!!

Dave are you sure you have that right? Think you better check this out properly before you print off thousands of leaflets.

What was a city council thinking about investing in railway infrastructure? It just doesn't seem right.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 21 Apr 2006, 16:26

Stephen

I have seen said leaflet and I should have done more than skim it. And I should have gone to the meeting too. I guess I'll have to leave it to Kitch to do the documentary.

OK, you claim that although nobody lied, there is a lie.

I put it to you that in order for there to be a lie, there must be deliberate intent to mislead - that is, not only must there be a false statement but that the person or persons presenting it must have known that it was false and presented it on purpose - not just departed from truth or facts.

I think that you must also prove the intent to deceive in order for what has been printed to be held up as a lie.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Apr 2006, 17:33

More than one document being circulated last night was, 'factually challenged' shall we say.

On my way out, politely declining Carla's request for a donation, I was offered a copy of a pro-forma letter (by our very own Green Dream) addressed to Johann Lamont MSP, Deputy Minister for Communities. I do wish people would just email me this kind of thing because it's a bit of a chore to type it all out, but here are some quotes you might find interesting:

...and the 150 year old golf course

Oh no it isn't.

I understand that because there is a conflict of interest in the Council proposing to develop its own land......that Scottish Ministers will be called upon to make the decision on whether this can go ahead.

This is news to me.

...gifted to the people of Portobello

I think we've covered this

I speak for the majority of the citizens of Portobello

Are you sure? That's a bold statement.

Anyone wishing to send their own message to Johann Lamont MSP, who may or may not have a role to play in the decision-making process, to point out these inaccuracies and to present their own personal view should address their letter to The Scottish Parliament, Edinburgh, EH99 1SP or email her at Johann.Lamont.msp@scottish.parliament.uk

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Apr 2006, 17:59

I think it is worthy of mention that on our way to the meeting last night, Marya and I bumped into Maureen Child. She and her husband Nick had literally just stepped off a bus, still clutching their rucksacks, on their way home from a holiday in France. We joked that she had arrived just in time for the meeting. After exchanging pleasantries she headed off, we assumed, to put her feet up and relax after a long journey.

Ten minutes later Maureen arrives at St Marks, back to work, and was still there when we left, speaking to a constituent.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 21 Apr 2006, 18:02

Bob Jefferson wrote:I think it is worthy of mention that on our way to the meeting last night, Marya and I bumped into Maureen Child. She and her husband Nick had literally just stepped off a bus, still clutching their rucksacks, on their way home from a holiday in France. We joked that she had arrived just in time for the meeting. After exchanging pleasantries she headed off, we assumed, to put her feet up and relax after a long journey.

Ten minutes later Maureen arrives at St Marks, back to work, and was still there when we left, speaking to a constituent.

I heard that she walked home across the channel too.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Apr 2006, 18:11

Remarkably, that's probably not the wackiest claim that has been made here recently.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 21 Apr 2006, 18:17

Bob Jefferson wrote:Remarkably, that's probably not the wackiest claim that has been made here recently.