New Portobello High School- Where and how?

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 27 Apr 2006, 09:10

this is all good and well...

the real question.............

Is it acceptable for Edinburgh Council to concrete/tarmac over a large part of what is a lovely and well used open area of parkland, build a load of flats/ houses and two schools.

Surely this is still the real Portobello question.

Hopefully, today I believe, we will all get a better idea of pretty much exactly the area of the Park they are looking at turning over to housing and then the real arguements can begin.....

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 27 Apr 2006, 09:17

Stephen McIntyre wrote: I say it should have been ratified and substaniated prior to being published and distributed to the good citizens of Portobello. Deliberate or not makes little difference.

Is this in reference to the leaflet with the Oscar Wilde Quote? If so that leaflet also said "The Council will be voting on whether to take a single option on building on the park and golf course forward to a meeting on 25 April". Not the most accurate, is it?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 27 Apr 2006, 09:28

Gilo wrote: Is this in reference to the leaflet with the Oscar Wilde Quote? If so that leaflet also said "The Council will be voting on whether to take a single option on building on the park and golf course forward to a meeting on 25 April". Not the most accurate, is it?

Yes but to be fair on PPAG the date changed after the leaflet was produced.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 09:32

bbbrown wrote:this is all good and well...

the real question.............

Is it acceptable for Edinburgh Council to concrete/tarmac over a large part of what is a lovely and well used open area of parkland, build a load of flats/ houses and two schools.

Surely this is still the real Portobello question.

Hopefully, today I believe, we will all get a better idea of pretty much exactly the area of the Park they are looking at turning over to housing and then the real arguements can begin.....

It's arguably a more important question bb, but unfortunately we have to work within the rules of the powers that be here who could move or delete something which isn't within their definition of what can or can't be posted on this thread.

They have given themselves the power to decide what questions can or can't be asked in this particular place - watch out because your bigger questions may be judged "off topic".

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Apr 2006, 09:32

bbbrown wrote:Hopefully, today I believe, we will all get a better idea of pretty much exactly the area of the Park they are looking at turning over to housing and then the real arguements can begin.....

Then I think you might be disappointed. It's still all very much up in the air and open to negotiation. There is no single proposal and it has not even been narrowed down to the three that Ian Perry seemed to indicate the other night. There is still no detail.

What we do get from the report is an idea of timescale and procedure and it is clear that it is all going to take a very long time, with further reports scheduled for August and late November.

Indeed, a small, determined group could probably force a Public Inquiry and delay the whole process of building replacement schools for our kids for years.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 27 Apr 2006, 09:36

Bob Jefferson wrote:Indeed, a small, determined group could probably force a Public Inquiry and delay the whole process of building replacement schools for our kids for years.

It is to be expected.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 09:47

Bob Jefferson wrote: Indeed, a small, determined group could probably force a Public Inquiry and delay the whole process of building

If the shoe were on the other foot or this were PCATS, you would be applauding that as "democracy".

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 27 Apr 2006, 09:49

Stephen McIntyre wrote: Yes but to be fair on PPAG the date changed after the leaflet was produced.

I wasn't referring to the date, more the statement of single option... a tad misleading?

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 27 Apr 2006, 10:06

Why is it the small determined forces of evil within the local community that you are trying to paint as being to blame in some way...the way you keep going on about "our kids"......."force a public enquiry"...

I have kids...many people who are none to happy at Edinburgh Council carving up Portobello Park have kids...."our kids".....

Should Edinburgh Council not shoulder some of the responsibility rather than the tax paying members of the local community who show some concern about losing well used, open green space, which contributes hugely to the well being of the people of that community, including loads of "our kids"....
Surely it must not have been too hard to realise that a whole load of folks might not be mad keen on the local environment being destroyed..It may be difficult for some residents of the quiet back streets of Portobello, with those nice quiet green parks in protected conservation areas, to conceive that Portobello Park is important to the people of the community over the railway track. That it is an otherwise built up, heavily congested area, in which the Park is actually an oasis of peace and quiet

To me, it is Edinburgh's Councils lack of planning, vision and forward thinking that has caused this mess in the first place. It is not as if Portobello High School has just suddenly become unfit for purpose overnight..is it?

(Rant over for now...)

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 27 Apr 2006, 10:09

Gilo wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote: Yes but to be fair on PPAG the date changed after the leaflet was produced.
I wasn't referring to the date, more the statement of single option... a tad misleading?

Oh I see, my apologies. Misleading information is a standard feature of all decanters media.

The funny thing is they continually mislead themselves. It goes back to Portyman's initial post when he triumphantly trashed the council for not abiding by the Central Edinburgh Plan. Tradgedy ensued when Portyman discovered that although he had paid a premium for a view of Portobello Park some 15 ior 16 years ago, Portobello Park is not in central edinburgh. Further disappointment was only just round the corner when a leading protagonist the PPAG campaign accused the council of only focusing on Portobello for the site of a new school. only to discover that Portobello Park is not in Portobello. Its comical, dangerous but comical.

Anyway Gilo I'm glad you are being vigilant about inaccurracy, it can be lonely up here. Getting back to your original point can you help me with this one?

Gilo wrote:Is this in reference to the leaflet with the Oscar Wilde Quote?

Was it Oscar Wilde that made that statement and is that in fact what was said?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 27 Apr 2006, 10:14

Dadaist wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote: Indeed, a small, determined group could probably force a Public Inquiry and delay the whole process of building
If the shoe were on the other foot or this were PCATS, you would be applauding that as "democracy".

Well said Dada

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 27 Apr 2006, 10:25

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Was it Oscar Wilde that made that statement and is that in fact what was said?

It was Mark Twain.......accurate as ever.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 27 Apr 2006, 10:33

HAhahahahaha! It makes you wonder if there was a large contingent of disciples wanderng about Portobello last wednesday evening looking for a meeting? Muttering to themselves "Well, the leaflet said Thursday, so we can rule that out and surely they won't have it on a Friday?"

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 10:49

Stephen, at your earliest convenience.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 27 Apr 2006, 11:02

It is an interesting feature of this forum that, by and large, it is the supporters of PFANS who seem to find it amusing to belittle and make fun of the PPAG supporters....talking about "large contingents of disciples".."muttering to themselves" etc..etc..yet by and large, i cant recall PPAG trying to make out that PFANS are a bunch of simpletons or whatever.. has any one else noticed this?...is it a deliberate ploy?..i am not close to either group...just something i've noticed....maybe its just the joys of local politics....

ali · Post by **ali** » 27 Apr 2006, 11:06

bbbrown wrote:..................losing well used, open green space .....................................an oasis of peace and quiet

Sorry, but in my experience the park may well be an oasis of peace and quiet but that's not because it is "well used".

The idea that the park is utilised by other than a very small minority of the people of Portobello is another myth promulgated by PPAG.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 11:06

bbbrown wrote:It is an interesting feature of this forum that, by and large, it is the supporters of PFANS who seem to find it amusing to belittle and make fun of the PPAG supporters....talking about "large contingents of disciples".."muttering to themselves" etc..etc..yet by and large, i cant recall PPAG trying to make out that PFANS are a bunch of simpletons or whatever.. has any one else noticed this?...is it a deliberate ploy?..i am not close to either group...just something i've noticed....maybe its just the joys of local politics....

A very accurate observation. Right at the start of this all, I thought it was going to be the other way round but it's not. It's just few ringleaders thought but they are very vocal and intelligent.

Do you think PPAG needs its own forum?

I am a signatory to the PFANS thingy - although not the web one where you get your whole clan to sign - but whilst I support the plan I don't support the tactics taken on here.

You could say I was for the war but against the troops.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 27 Apr 2006, 11:21

Sorry, but in my experience the park may well be an oasis of peace and quiet but that's not because it is "well used".

The idea that the park is utilised by other than a very small minority of the people of Portobello is another myth promulgated by PPAG.

ali..as has been pointed out...Portobello Park is not actually in Portobello. If you live in Portobello you are probably far more likely to go down to the Promenade, or use one of the parks on your doorstep.
I think this is probably why some people in Portobello have the misconception that the Golf Course and surrounding Park is so insignificant..
The golf course is very well used, throughout the year, but especially during the summer. The Park itself is well used by football teams and kids from the Magdalene estate and surrounding area. Also all the dog walkers and folk just out for a stroll. You can view over the Forth, which I suspect will dissapear behind flats and houses, from the top of the Park..It is in the middle of an otherwise congested and traffic ensnarled area, which will be much worse when/if developed...
I raised a point yonks ago that the parks in Portobello are hardly thronged with folk at the best of times..that doesn't mean they are not well used and appreciated by the locals, and somehow have to justify their existance......

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 11:28

That's an important observation bb - users of the park and course have been forced to defend it being where it is because it's in the way of this development - a bit like if your house was in the way of a bypass.

PFANS more frothy proponents don't say a thing in public against the council or New Labour - the people who have put us in this situation - and this speaks volumes.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 27 Apr 2006, 11:31

bbbrown wrote:It is an interesting feature of this forum that, by and large, it is the supporters of PFANS who seem to find it amusing to belittle and make fun of the PPAG supporters....talking about "large contingents of disciples".."muttering to themselves" etc..etc..yet by and large, i cant recall PPAG trying to make out that PFANS are a bunch of simpletons or whatever.. has any one else noticed this?...is it a deliberate ploy?......

I have noticed it and I believe it is a deliberate ploy. By and large you will find the information and statements that emanate from the PFANS camp are factual and accurate. Conversely the information and statements that emanate from PPAG are grossly inaccurate and should not be allowed to pervade the community psyche, unless of course they can be ratiified.

You have perhaps noticed another behaviour pattern; A claim is made> a request is made for the claim to be quantified> the request is ignored> and by ignored I mean not even as much as an acknowledgment> request is made for the claim to be quantified> ignored> request is made for the claim to be quantified> ignored> > request is made for the claim to be quantified> ignored> request is made for the claim to be quantified> ignored> request is made for the claim to be quantified> ignored> request is made for the claim to be quantified> ignored> request is made for the claim to be quantified> ignored> request is made for the claim to be quantified> ignored> request is made for the claim to be quantified> ignored> request is made for the claim to be quantified> ignored.

Eventually someone makes a vague reference to bullying.

Allow me to ilustrate: On the PPAG leaflet a claim is made "at least two-thirds of the Park being built on" This is an outrageous statement. Building on two-thirds of the park is not an option or proposal on any document that I have seen or am aware of, other than the aforementioned leaflet.

Personally I am very unhappy that people are prepared to use such tactics to prevent the children of the community availing themselves of the best educational opportunity this community can give them. Even although I respect their desire to preserve park, as is. I want them to stop making false, damaging statements . One way of doing that is to get them to quantify the basis for making the statements. It is not my fault if they choose not to do so.

The post about muttering etc was tongue in cheek, As Oscar Wilde said. "Go on punk, make my day" .

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 11:44

Thanks Stephen - now can you answer the main body of my post?

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 27 Apr 2006, 11:47

PFANS are willing to twist reality to suit their selfish aims

So how is this not labelling PFANS and its supporters ?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 27 Apr 2006, 11:47

I am happy to comply with your request. I am very pleased that you are allowing me the leeway of convenience.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 11:50

Stephen McIntyre wrote:I am happy to comply with your request. I am very pleased that you are allowing me the leeway of convenience.

Have you also given Alison the leeway of convenience?

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 27 Apr 2006, 11:54

Dadaist wrote: by this token the likes of our cynical pro-plan posse

I think there has been a fair amount of name calling. The point is that any leaflets to the community purporting to give information on this subject need to be accurate.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:04

Gilo wrote:
Dadaist wrote: by this token the likes of our cynical pro-plan posse
I think there has been a fair amount of name calling. The point is that any leaflets to the community purporting to give information on this subject need to be accurate.

Absolutely. Accuracy starts at home though, and one important word that it is important to be accurate about is "lie".

Do you think that I was inaccurate in my usage of :

1. cynical (people who said different things about land near their houses or about the supermarket)
2. pro-plan (part of an alliterative joke and also a comedic double reference to a dietary product as well as a council plan)
3. posse (to my eyes they seem to be out to hunt down the people they see as damaging our kids' futures!)

I would be very happy to sign up to a no name-calling charter if it was also signed by Bob, Marya and Stephen McIntyre.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:14

Dadaist wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:I am happy to comply with your request. I am very pleased that you are allowing me the leeway of convenience.
Have you also given Alison the leeway of convenience?

No, I wanted an answer the next time she posted.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:15

Bob J says

[/quote]Then I think you might be disappointed. It's still all very much up in the air and open to negotiation. There is no single proposal and it has not even been narrowed down to the three that Ian Perry seemed to indicate the other night. There is still no detail.

What we do get from the report is an idea of timescale and procedure and it is clear that it is all going to take a very long time, with further reports scheduled for August and late November.

Stephen...there are no facts..there is no detail. as far as i can see everything is supposition at the moment. I look forwards to the day that the Council actually reveals its intentions for Portobello Park and Golf Course...In the meantime, I dont think any party can claim the moral high ground for being factual and accurate, especially in regard to the amount of development for housing that will be required..

Gilo..

PFANS are willing to twist reality to suit their selfish aims

So how is this not labelling PFANS and its supporters ?

Well done..that must have been tricky to find..not.
I think, however, as you diligently pick your way through the pages (have fun, by the way, it'll be no mean task) you will find that Alison is probably actually one of those who has been most singled out for "the treatment" (as I like to think of it)....

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:17

Stephen has given "the treatment" to gemini, dccairns and now alison.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:18

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:I am happy to comply with your request. I am very pleased that you are allowing me the leeway of convenience.
Have you also given Alison the leeway of convenience?
No, I wanted an answer the next time she posted.

Do you want to give it to her or shall I remove it?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:19

That was no way supposed to sound rude.

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:19

bbbrown wrote:
It is an interesting feature of this forum that, by and large, it is the supporters of PFANS who seem to find it amusing to belittle and make fun of the PPAG supporters....talking about "large contingents of disciples".."muttering to themselves" etc..etc..yet by and large, i cant recall PPAG trying to make out that PFANS are a bunch of simpletons or whatever.. has any one else noticed this?...is it a deliberate ploy?......

No deliberate ploy, just a simple case of, empty vessels making the most noise!

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:31

Stephen McIntyre wrote: a claim is made "at least two-thirds of the Park being built on" This is an outrageous statement. Building on two-thirds of the park is not an option or proposal on any document that I have seen

So, what are they going to do? Project an image of the two schools onto a tree? If they're putting two schools on a third of the site presumably they'll be using breeze block and wallpaper paste, and 400++ houses on another third of the site, that makes two thirds of the site being built on - or did I miss something at school by not having a playing field?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:36

Epykat - I'm going to have to look back at the posts after the not-hijacked meeting we were both at - but did Ian or Rev Aitken not say "a third, a third and a third" as an answer to somebodies question?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:39

Porty wrote:We need a solution. Snide remarks, blame, insults, accusations of deliberate manipulation,don't really help. We need to move forward as a community and we have the chance to make a real difference for the children of the community.

Bring back Porty - he was much calmer than Stephen McIntyre!