New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:40

Dadaist wrote: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?

I do believe he did.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:44

These are quotes from some of the stuff PFANS have on their website. It took me about thirty seconds of looking to find these gems. Petty..but here we go....

[/quote]
REGARDING the city council's proposal to build new schools on Portobello Golf Course, there is simply no alternative site within the catchment area that is large enough to accommodate the new schools and playing fields that our children desperately need and deserve.

Stephen....Is this factual. Is it accurate?

[/quote]We would lose our 150-year-old golf course, but like myself, I am sure the 120 members would be delighted to travel an extra two minutes in their cars to access a new improved council course.

Stephen....Is this factual. Is it accurate?

[/quote]The council and Portobello school board say they have assessed the available sites and there are no other realistic alternatives.

Stephen....Is this factual. Is it accurate?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:48

Dadaist wrote: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?

Yes he did.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:49

The Report

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:50

Epykat wrote:
Dadaist wrote: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?
I do believe he did.

I have looked back and on page 35 I said the council plan was to build housing on 33% of the site.

I remember now that one of Ewan or Ian said that the housing was going to take up "a third" of the site in answer to a question somebody made.

In my post on page 35 I rounded that down to 33% (as opposed to having a recurring decimal .33333) but knew that this was more than the figure that we had seen on the nicely-coloured map that Porty had provided.

Does this help anyone?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:57

Stephen - do you want me to remove the leeway of convenience from my request that you respond to the main body of my reply to your reply to my assertion about the definition of "lie", or do you want to extend this facility to Alison with reference to your repeated questioning of her with regards to the Â£18m shortfall?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 27 Apr 2006, 12:59

bbbrown wrote: REGARDING the city council's proposal to build new schools on Portobello Golf Course, there is simply no alternative site within the catchment area that is large enough to accommodate the new schools and playing fields that our children desperately need and deserve.
Stephen....Is this factual.

Was this a quote from a letter to the evening news or a statement by PFANS?

bbbrown wrote: We would lose our 150-year-old golf course, but like myself, I am sure the 120 members would be delighted to travel an extra two minutes in their cars to access a new improved council course.

Stephen....Is this factual. Is it accurate?

Sounds like someones opinion to me rather than a statement by PFANS.

bbbrown wrote:The council and Portobello school board say they have assessed the available sites and there are no other realistic alternatives.

Stephen....Is this factual. Is it accurate?

Yes, I believe the School Board did reach that concluison.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:01

Dadaist wrote:Stephen - do you want me to remove the leeway of convenience from my request that you respond to the main body of my reply to your reply to my assertion about the definition of "lie", or do you want to extend this facility to Alison with reference to your repeated questioning of her with regards to the Â£18m shortfall?

It is beyond your remit to extend the leeway facility to Alison on my behalf. I remain grateful for the leeway you have granted me and I will not forget to reciprocate in future.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:07

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Stephen - do you want me to remove the leeway of convenience from my request that you respond to the main body of my reply to your reply to my assertion about the definition of "lie", or do you want to extend this facility to Alison with reference to your repeated questioning of her with regards to the Â£18m shortfall?
It is beyond your remit to extend the leeway facility to Alison on my behalf. I remain grateful for the leeway you have granted me and I will not forget to reciprocate in future.

It's either or. Either you give Alison leeway or I remove mine.

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:14

Just to clarify, the latter two quotes were under the Opinions page of the PFANS website and were letters from individuals to the Evening News.

Regarding tone, I welcome everyone being nudged in a constructive direction, what ever opinion may be held this is indeed a very important subject.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:15

For your general reference, Mr McIntyre :

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

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

Post by **wangi** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:16

Dadaist wrote:For your general reference, Mr McIntyre :

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

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

Dada, that is a lie... Since it is not true. Portobello Park was not gifted...

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:17

I believe what I said was. "There is a lie but I did not accuse anyone of lying" I stick by that. I'm happy that the gift statement was a lie and it featured on the PPAG lieflet. A lie was perpetuated. Someone put the leaflet together, some PPAGS have identified their sources as "being people they respect". I know there's a lie been published but i don't know who perpetrated it? I'm guessing its a liar.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:21

I remember the Evening Snooze reporting something about this issue "dividing our community" and thinking at the time that that was nonsense. I believed that people within this community could hold opposing views on an important issue without it becoming some sort of battlefield. I still believe that, and I know there are many people making efforts not to let differing views affect their relationships.

However, I become more and more disheartened by the division I see here on the forum. Backbiting, bullying, sniping seem to be becoming more and more the order of the day. Some people say the people who don't want the development are selfish for wanting to retain a community space for the community. Some people say the people who see this as the only option are selfish for wanting decent facilities for the community's children. I don't think either group is being selfish, and I think it's regrettable that we've been put in such a difficult position in the first place.

However, the fact - and I'm even wary of using that word at all in the current climate - is that we are in this position. And we are still a community. and when all this is over, one way or another, we'll still be a community. We'll still be neighbours, colleagues, friends...or at least, I hope we will. Different people have different opinions and different desires for the community, and that's as it should be; this forum is a place to express those views. It is not a place for intimidation, hectoring, belittling, or making wild accusations against each other.

Adhere to the posting guidelines, folks - and remember we're a community.

Paula

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:23

wangi wrote:
Dadaist wrote:For your general reference, Mr McIntyre :

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

Dada, that is a lie... Since it is not true. Portobello Park was not gifted...

I therefore refer you to my previously posted assertion about the accepted definition of "lie".

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:24

Stephen McIntyre wrote:I believe what I said was. "There is a lie but I did not accuse anyone of lying" I stick by that. I'm happy that the gift statement was a lie and it featured on the PPAG lieflet. A lie was perpetuated. Someone put the leaflet together, some PPAGS have identified their sources as "being people they respect". I know there's a lie been published but i don't know who perpetrated it? I'm guessing its a liar.

I therefore refer you to my previously posted assertion about the accepted definition of "lie".

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:26

Appendix 2

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:28

Gilo wrote: Just to clarify, the latter two quotes were under the Opinions page of the PFANS website and were letters from individuals to the Evening News.

Gilo, i didn't bother to check the website, thanks for that.

Gilo wrote: Regarding tone, I welcome everyone being nudged in a constructive direction, what ever opinion may be held this is indeed a very important subject.

Yep, the constructive direction being new schools. I hope people have not lost sight of the fact that neither PFANS nor myself want houses to be built on the park. I think we would weep with joy if COEC could come up with such a solution.

Too much of this argument has focused on housing and funding (although it is essential). For me, if I had Â£50m quid to spare and I was the decision maker as to where our new schools go? I would put them on Portobello Park. What a fantastic environment for the 1900 children and staff to enjoy for the foreseeable future.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:30

Dadaist wrote:I therefore refer you to my previously posted assertion about the accepted definition of "lie".

What is the accepted definition of a "lie" to which you refer? And who is is accepted by? And is it the only accepted definition? If so? Please provide the source.

Edit "Lying" to "Lie"

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:30

For wangi and Stephen - here is what I said last Friday :

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** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:32

And to add to Paula's post, I'm getting pretty fed up with some of the nonsense that has been posted recently as well, so please would everyone start treating each other with respect or the mods will start removing posts wholesale that we feel are not in the correct spirit of debate.

A very important report has just been published. Shouldn't that be our starting point for debate today?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:34

Bob Jefferson wrote:.

A very important report has just been published. Shouldn't that be our starting point for debate today?

Yes it should. Whose going first?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:34

Bob Jefferson wrote:And to add to Paula's post, I'm getting pretty fed up with some of the nonsense that has been posted recently as well, so please would everyone start treating each other with respect or the mods will start removing posts wholesale that we feel are not in the correct spirit of debate.

A very important report has just been published. Shouldn't that be our starting point for debate today?

Bob

Does "everybody" and "treating each other with respect" apply to Stephen McIntyre's repeated questioning of Alison Connelly?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:37

I believe there is a lack of respect involved in my continuing questioning of Alison. Its down to the need for continual questioning.

Edit

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:40

Dadaist wrote:
Bob Jefferson wrote:And to add to Paula's post, I'm getting pretty fed up with some of the nonsense that has been posted recently as well, so please would everyone start treating each other with respect or the mods will start removing posts wholesale that we feel are not in the correct spirit of debate.

A very important report has just been published. Shouldn't that be our starting point for debate today?
Bob

Does "everybody" and "treating each other with respect" apply to Stephen McIntyre's repeated questioning of Alison Connelly?

Clearly, 'everybody' means just that. So, please, let's all try to get back to quality debate. Any outstanding issues can be sorted out by private message.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:42

From today's EN:

Parks picked out for new high school role

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:46

The Report

Firstly, may I address some questions that Alison asked Bob yesterday regarding Brunstane: today's report does not take into account any contribution or costs relating to the development at Brunstane. So the purchase price of the new golf course site is not included, the cost of developing the cost of the new golf course is not included and the profit contribution from the sale of housing at Brunstane is not included.

As far as I can determine the profit from the sale of housing at Brunstane will be calculated after the costs of land purchase at Brunstane and the cost of developing the new course.

Edit

ali · Post by **ali** » 27 Apr 2006, 13:51

bbbrown wrote:
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......

bb
you may have noticed that I started my post ".....in my experience....."?

I have never passed the park when I could've described anything that I saw there as "very well used". Still that's just my opinion. Maybe I should get out more.

I can however imagine how the park could be re-designed/configured so that many more people - including school children - could make good use of it.

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

re the report,

doesn't hold any surprises..

let the consultation begin.....

(pity it seems to dismiss the brown field options so quickly)

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 27 Apr 2006, 14:29

BB I'm in broad agreement with you, however I am surprised by this bit:

"It is intended that the proceeds of all land sales will be utilised for the construction of the proposed new schools"

This seems to be a retraction from "all developers profit" would be retained or whatever the exact phrase was?

Post by **wangi** » 27 Apr 2006, 14:36

The complete report:

Report
Appendix 1 - list of possible sites with details of areas and comments
Appendix 2 - map detailing location of sites within catchment area

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 27 Apr 2006, 15:21

so.......

how about......

the Jewel and Bingham........

they aint been discussed much have they?

pros and cons anyone?

Gemini · Post by **Gemini** » 27 Apr 2006, 15:32

I was quite surprised that it was such a huge catchment area!
Can anyone tell me if Meadowbank is included in the Catchment
area, the map is pretty poor (IMO) even with magnification.

thank you

Post by **wangi** » 27 Apr 2006, 15:39

Gemini wrote:I was quite surprised that it was such a huge catchment area! Can anyone tell me if Meadowbank is included in the Catchment
area, the map is pretty poor (IMO) even with magnification.

I put together one earlier in the thread... somewhere!

Click for full size

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 27 Apr 2006, 15:47

gemini....it kind of looks from the council map that some one has got a bit carried away with the pencil...(unless MeadowBank really is in the catchment area..which could open up a whole new can of worms)

move PHS to Meadowbank anybody?