New Portobello High School- Where and how?

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

Marya wrote: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 wasn't happy with this slur either and I think it is time that the results of the poll held with the PHS teaching staff were made public.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 21 Apr 2006, 20:17

Bob Jefferson wrote:No sooner is one myth destroyed but another rises to take its place. This is complete fantasy. I can see that such a story would suit your purpose but I suspect that, as with the orginal myth, it is simply wishful thinking.

Whether the Council were gifted the land, bought it, stole it or won it in the Lottery shouldn't detract from the initial argument

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 21 Apr 2006, 20:28

Bob Jefferson wrote:I wasn't happy with this slur either and I think it is time that the results of the poll held with the PHS teaching staff were made public.

You really should get your facts right before you make public statements such as this. It wasn't a Poll and it wasn't just for TEACHING staff. Wouldn't want any accusations of lying being laid at your door

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 21 Apr 2006, 20:47

Epykat wrote:It wasn't a Poll and it wasn't just for TEACHING staff.

I know that staff were asked for their views but I confess I don't know exactly what format it took. Can you enlighten us?

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 21 Apr 2006, 23:21

Pal of Porty wrote:
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.

If I am wrong, I will gladly say so.

Pal of Porty wrote:Was it you that contributed this 'belief' to the Save Portobello Park leaflet?

no

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

Pal of Porty wrote: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.

I think Mr Marshall has been listening and genuinely trying to come up with realistic solutions, I dont agree with them all, but he is at least saying what he thinks.

The other councillors who have been brave enough to express any opinion, well good on them.

The rest appear to be waiting for the wind to change. Having emailed and spoken to quite a few. I am convinced that at the last minute, they will come down on the side of whoever appears to want to vote for them.

Pal of Porty wrote:PS Thanks for the double spacing

it was especially for you

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 21 Apr 2006, 23:28

Marya wrote: 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.

That apparently isn't allowed, they have to get the money elsewhere.

I was hoping that some legal type might start posting some real evidence on the forum to support any of the issues.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 21 Apr 2006, 23:29

Did anyone see an article in the press about our Government refusing millions of pounds for schools because the terms were being dictated from Westminster?

If you have please post a copy

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 21 Apr 2006, 23:32

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.

Please post the evidence

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 21 Apr 2006, 23:42

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

I was sitting with both Alison and our friends from PFans, there was no hijack, one or two people were allowed to put forward their views, with the chair of the meeting giving them support to do so.

Tom did go on a bit,

He does express himself well though.

Another person in the balcony, (no idea who) took Mr Perry to task on a couple of items and to give him his due, Mr Perry wrote something down and said he would get back to him.

There were a few heckles on both sides, thats half the fun of it.

All of the speakers did well in what must have been quite intimidating circumstances with so many people being present.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 21 Apr 2006, 23:58

Marya wrote: 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.

Marya, what she said may have sounded like abuse, however factors like free school meals/milk, school roll, apparently make a big difference to the salaries. Which to my mind is insulting to the teachers who do a great jobs in schools with smaller roles and more affluent parents/guardians. Dont you think

She also suggested that the main body of teachers didn't have a look in when it came to the choice.

Even if you dont agree with what she said, she was brave enough to stand up and say what she thought was right, whilst some of her friends and neighbours, who clearly didn't agree were there. I admire her for her courage, even if I dont always agree with her.

I am not a teacher and didn't go to Porty, so I would welcome comments from anyone who is/did.

Yes Ros was very fair and spoke well.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 22 Apr 2006, 00:19

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.

Freightliner, ok wrong use of words again.

Stephen McIntyre wrote: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.

Stated what I believed after being told so by someone I respected. Maybe they were wrong, maybe I was wrong, at least I am putting ideas forward

Stephen McIntyre wrote: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!!

yeah yeah! Bit pedantic Stephen

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

havenâ€™t yet printed any, donâ€™t intend to print any, maybe you should get your facts right.

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

Maybe your right there, didnâ€™t they take away the railways and stations from around Edinburgh?

I am waiting to see anything evidentially posted from you. Anyone can sit at home/work who has time to do so and go through every thread and pick holes in any of the posts online.

I use this forum to post my thoughts in an effort to drum up some debate, right or wrong, fact or fantasy, you can be the judge.

Doesnâ€™t really matter what any of us think, what matters is what gets done.

I have signed the petition to call upon the City of Edinburgh Council to consider and evaluate a full range of options and alternatives, as have over 200 people in the last week. There have been over 800 views of the website in that time. I think thatâ€™s the fair way to go, (no reference to golf there).

As I said before, this is supposed to be a democracy, lets see if it is.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 22 Apr 2006, 00:25

sorry for hijacking the forum there

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 22 Apr 2006, 00:44

Dave

You could say that pedantry is Stephen's middle name, but he would immediately correct you.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 22 Apr 2006, 01:19

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Epykat wrote:It wasn't a Poll and it wasn't just for TEACHING staff.
I know that staff were asked for their views but I confess I don't know exactly what format it took. Can you enlighten us?

Don't really think that's my place. You could ask the official school representative at the next CC meeting.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 22 Apr 2006, 10:18

Dave Connelly wrote:I am waiting to see anything evidentially posted from you. Anyone can sit at home/work who has time to do so and go through every thread and pick holes in any of the posts online.

Particulary when people constantly make false statements.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 22 Apr 2006, 10:36

Dave Connelly wrote:
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.

Freightliner, ok wrong use of words again.

Perhaps? However, you must admit it happens a lot:

Council sold the land to build a freightliner terminal (Dave, they didn't even own the land in question and it is public knowledge) When someone told you that the council wanted to build a freightliner terminal, was there not a little bit of you that thought. "wait a minute, councils don't build freightliner terminals?, I better check that out before I post, as Stephen will have a field day if its wong"

"At least two thirds of the park shall being built on"- another falsehood from the save the park leaflet.

"The loss of the park" another falsehood from the save the park leaflet

"unlike other parts of Edinburgh " another falsehood from the save the park leaflet

"hysterical reports circulating" another falsehood from the save the park leaflet

"the new golf course is a 45minute walk from the existing course" another falsehood on Radio 4.

"I paid a premium to always have a park view" another falsehood from Portyman.

"180 people use Portobello Golf Course on almost every day of the year" -another faslehood from Portyman

"There is an 18m shortfall"- another falsehood from Alison Connelly

"some parents are being excluded from a school meeting"- another falsehood.

I could go on.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 22 Apr 2006, 10:39

Great work on the archive Bob.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 22 Apr 2006, 10:46

Dadaist wrote:Dave

You could say that pedantry is Stephen's middle name, but he would immediately correct you.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 22 Apr 2006, 10:55

Epykat wrote:Whether the Council were gifted the land, bought it, stole it or won it in the Lottery shouldn't detract from the initial argument

True but ultimately this will probably prove to be a fundamental issue. On the subject of "ownership", I also do not not think you would like it if I published a leaflet saying "the land is owned by Pal of Porty and he thinks it is a good idea to build a school on it."

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 22 Apr 2006, 10:56

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Perhaps? However, you must admit it happens a lot:

I work long hours

Stephen McIntyre wrote:another falsehood ,another falsehood ,another falsehood ,another falsehood ,another falsehood ,another falsehood, everyone is telling me porkies..I could go on.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 22 Apr 2006, 10:56

Dave Connelly wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Dave

You could say that pedantry is Stephen's middle name, but he would immediately correct you.
<img src="http://www.clanconnelly.com/portyonline/laughing.jpg">

Which one is Stephen?

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 22 Apr 2006, 11:04

Pal of Porty wrote:On the subject of "ownership", I also do not not think you would like it if I published a leaflet saying "the land is owned by Pal of Porty and he thinks it is a good idea to build a school on it."

<a href="http://www.mpeople.co.uk/">http://www.mpeople.co.uk/</a>

You haven't , have you?

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 22 Apr 2006, 11:04

Dave Connelly wrote:
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.
Please post the evidence

Dave I do not have a scanner and most definitely not the inclination to type out what is a very difficult document to read. However you are more than welcome to drop by the shop the next time you are passing and pick up a copy.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 22 Apr 2006, 11:06

Pal of Porty wrote: Dave I do not have a scanner and most definitely not the inclination to type out what is a very difficult document to read. However you are more than welcome to drop by the shop the next time you are passing and pick up a copy.

ta

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 22 Apr 2006, 11:07

Dave Connelly wrote:
Pal of Porty wrote:On the subject of "ownership", I also do not not think you would like it if I published a leaflet saying "the land is owned by Pal of Porty and he thinks it is a good idea to build a school on it."
<a href="http://www.mpeople.co.uk/">http://www.mpeople.co.uk/</a>

You havne't , have you?

No, but it is as relevant as some of the statements made on the 'park' leaflet!

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 22 Apr 2006, 11:12

Dave Connelly wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:Perhaps? However, you must admit it happens a lot:
I work long hours

Stephen McIntyre wrote:another falsehood ,another falsehood ,another falsehood ,another falsehood ,another falsehood ,another falsehood, everyone is telling me porkies..I could go on.
<img src="http://www.clanconnelly.com/portyonline/paranoid.gif">

Yep, but you are not going to defend any of the statements are you?

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 22 Apr 2006, 11:31

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Great work on the archive Bob.

Thanks. I'm almost half-way through but I've already discovered some interesting stuff I missed first time round, so I'm sure other people will find it a valuable resource as well.

I'm going to put the links to all the letters the EN has published on the matter in as well under one post.

If anyone thinks I've missed anything important please let me know.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 22 Apr 2006, 11:42

Pal of Porty wrote:
Epykat wrote:Whether the Council were gifted the land, bought it, stole it or won it in the Lottery shouldn't detract from the initial argument
True but ultimately this will probably prove to be a fundamental issue.

Why should it be a fundamental issue? We all know the Council 'own' the land (which they bought with PUBLIC money, not anything out of their personal bank accounts) - it still doesn't detract from the point in question which is "Do the majority of the Community want their elected representatives to build on said piece of land?" No one person owns the land. The Council are an elected representative of the Community, therefore I would say they are more custodians of the land.

Pal of Porty wrote: On the subject of "ownership", I also do not not think you would like it if I published a leaflet saying "the land is owned by Pal of Porty and he thinks it is a good idea to build a school on it."

I wouldn't give two hoots if you published such a leaflet! I'm a big grown up person and I know to take any such leaflets that end up on my doormat with a huge pinch of salt. It's called propaganda and people who use propaganda bend the truth all the time.

Dave Connelly · Post by **Dave Connelly** » 22 Apr 2006, 14:53

Stephen McIntyre wrote: Yep, but you are not going to defend any of the statements are you?

I will defend any statement which I believe to be right and fair.

edit -spelling

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 22 Apr 2006, 15:25

Dave Connelly wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote: Yep, but you are not going to defend any of the statements are you?
I will defend any statement which I believe to be right and fair.

edit -spelling

But you are not going to defend any of the above statements are you?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 22 Apr 2006, 15:31

Epykat wrote:Whether the Council were gifted the land, bought it, stole it or won it in the Lottery shouldn't detract from the initial argument

Really? So why do you think the Save Portobello Park campaign made such a big deal of it in their lieflet?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 22 Apr 2006, 15:51

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Epykat wrote:Whether the Council were gifted the land, bought it, stole it or won it in the Lottery shouldn't detract from the initial argument
Really? So why do you think the Save Portobello Park campaign made such a big deal of it in their lieflet?

I have no idea. Possibly for the same reasons PFANS made such a big deal of the pigeons?

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 22 Apr 2006, 15:56

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 22 Apr 2006, 15:57

Epykat wrote:I have no idea. Possibly for the same reasons PFANS made such a big deal of the pigeons?

Did they? I missed that. Were they standing up at meetings, voices quivering with emotion and sooth saying about dead pigeons graves?

Seriously tho EK, if, as you say, it doesn't matter, why do so many people keep bringing it up?

Now that the truth is widely known, saying it doesn't really mattter is a bit of an about turn, indeed it lacks integrity.

Rex_Mundi · Post by **Rex_Mundi** » 22 Apr 2006, 16:17

Stephen McIntyre wrote:

Now that the truth is widely known

War is peace, Freedom is slavery,Ignorance is stregnth.
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.

What is the truth, what indeed is the truth?