New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[Scoop]

I have already said that I have inside knowledge. I'm sure you are not suggesting that this could only have come from instructing counsel, surely?

[seanie]

Once the Council had confirmed that it would not be going to court, back in December '08, then PPAG could only reasonably expect that they would be the ones to mount any legal challenge. Yet they waited over two-and-half-years. Even though, given the legal argument they've finally submitted, they could've challenged the Council as far back in December '06.

Now if fundraising wasn't going well, due to limited support within the wider community, it's understandable that PPAG may've wanted to postpone a legal action, but that's no justification for a delay of over two-and-a-half-years. Because having made their position crystal clear, the Council can't sit on their hands waiting for threatened legal challenges that don't arise.

[seashell]

I have already said that I have inside knowledge. I'm sure you are not suggesting that this could only have come from instructing counsel, surely?

I'm not suggesting any such thing. Please read my post properly. I asked you to clarify that you did not instruct counsel and then said that you must have some other experience of how they tender their fees.

This was in direct reponse to your post stating"Payments made to account, and sometimes in advance will have been requested." runs contrary to my own direct experience.

However, I've no problem at all if you prefer to remain enigmatic. You clearly have your reasons and why would anyone wish to speculate about these?

[Scoop]

How come the council didn't start building in 2006 then - why the delay?

[Scoop]

I have already said that I have inside knowledge. I'm sure you are not suggesting that this could only have come from instructing counsel, surely?

I'm not suggesting any such thing. Please read my post properly. I asked you to clarify that you did not instruct counsel

.... which I did, and then went on to give my reasons why I would not instruct "counsel" as you put it. "Counsel" must be an inside word.

and then said that you must have some other experience of how they tender their fees..

....which I do. I just didn't get my inside knowledge by instructing "counsel" . There is more than one way to skin a cat.

This was in direct reponse to your post stating"Payments made to account, and sometimes in advance will have been requested." runs contrary to my own direct experience.

....but not contrary to mine.

However, I've no problem at all if you prefer to remain enigmatic. ..

....so stop going on about it then if you have no problem with it,

You clearly have your reasons and why would anyone wish to speculate about these?

What you clearly appear to want to ask is - how come I know this? It's not anyone's business but mine. Nothing at all to do with being enigmatic.

[Porty]

Oh dear. Another case of mistaken identity. Perhaps I'm Seashell? What do you reckon Betty?

Betty's Seashell mix up is almost on a par with her mistaking PPAG for eco-conscious, green space protectors, foot soldiers for common good land all over the country -they're not bothered about the school. Had Portobello Park not been common good land, PPAG would have welcomed it with open arms. ROTFPASML!

Wonder who Betty thought Seashell was? Maybe its one of her cooncil scheme flock with a similar name? It does sound like a name from a soap opera: Seashell Mcdagger

Maybe not, what do i know, I'm so out of touch with that lot.

[Betty Windsor]

Scoop and Sean - you need to get Seashell to help out. Lets face it - you're never going to agree and you're struggling to understand each other's positions - call in the Mediator.

PB - I think you must be misinformed. Seashell can't be the person you think she is, her children attend PHS.

To return to the pantomime theme: oh no they don't.
I do not know who you think I am, Betty, but let me assure you that you are 100% wrong in that statement.

Still, I know who I am. I think...

I'm sorry I have been misunderstood here. On re-reading it I can see it was clumsilly put. What I meant is that I do not know who Seashell is and was letting PB know that the name she had been given could not possibly be Seashell as the person named had children at PHS and Seashell has made it clear she doesn't , so it couldn't possibly be the same person.
I am sorry for any confusion.

[Porty]

How come the council didn't start building in 2006 then - why the delay?

Oh FFS Scoop- the council have dozens of schools that need replaced/refurbished. There were 5 deemed "urgent" but no money and the SG withdrew PPP.

If I'm not mistaken PHS is the first or one of the first Scottish Schools to be commissioned since the SNP took control 5 years ago. The council managed to get the money together in 2008 and personally i think having the Minister for Justice as our MSP had more than a little to do with it.

The council only committed to building PHS once the funds were in place. If we follow your rationale, which i think is reasonable, PPAG committed to legal action 3 years before they had the funds.

And the timescale Sean refers to is not "his". Have a quick google about judicial reviews, the guidance on timescale is widely available.

[seanie]

How come the council didn't start building in 2006 then - why the delay?

Because that was simply the choice of site in principle. It took another year-and-a-half before financial restrictions forced a prioritisation process to identify the school in most urgent need of replacement; which turned out to be PHS. That was the decision in December '08. Then there was a process of appointing a design team, and then the lengthy process of design, which went from spring '09 till about spring '10. Then there was the extensive pre-planning consultation over the summer of 2010 before the planning application was submitted in the Autumn. Planning permission being granted in March 3011.

[Porty]

PB - I think you must be misinformed. Seashell can't be the person you think she is, her children attend PHS.

I'm sorry I have been misunderstood, What I meant is that I do not know who Seashell is and was letting PB know that the name she had been given could not possibly be Seashell as the person named had children at PHS. I am sorry for any confusion.

Got you now. Did you mean to say:

"PB - I think you must be misinformed. Seashell can't be the person you think she is. I do not know who Seashell is?

Was your objective to clarify the misinformation given to PB?

[seashell]

"Counsel" must be an inside word.

Not at all. Errr - counsel = advocate. Actually common parlance in legal circles.

What you clearly appear to want to ask is - how come I know this? It's not anyone's business but mine. Nothing at all to do with being enigmatic.

Not at all, you are speculating again.
Of course I believe that you have no knowledge of the legal term 'counsel' and yet have intimate knowledge of how they tender their fees.

[seashell]

I'm sorry I have been misunderstood here. On re-reading it I can see it was clumsilly put. What I meant is that I do not know who Seashell is and was letting PB know that the name she had been given could not possibly be Seashell as the person named had children at PHS and Seashell has made it clear she doesn't , so it couldn't possibly be the same person.
I am sorry for any confusion.

thank you, Betty.

[Scoop]

How come the council didn't start building in 2006 then - why the delay?

Oh FFS Scoop- the council have dozens of schools that need replaced/refurbished. There were 5 deemed "urgent" but no money and the SG withdrew PPP.

If I'm not mistaken PHS is the first or one of the first Scottish Schools to be commissioned since the SNP took control 5 years ago. The council managed to get the money together in 2008 and personally i think having the Minister for Justice as our MSP had more than a little to do with it.

The council only committed to building PHS once the funds were in place. If we follow your rationale, which i think is reasonable, PPAG committed to legal action 3 years before they had the funds.

And the timescale Sean refers to is not "his". Have a quick google about judicial reviews, the guidance on timescale is widely available.

Once I had deciphered / discarded the codes above, this is what I read. The council identified a need, but didn't have the funds in place. PPAG identified a need to challenge the council, but PERHAPS (only maybe, not defininte, neither confirmed nor unconfirmed) but didn't have the funds to raise the action until later. And then they committed. I don't think it's rocket science. I see it like a proposal of marriage. "Marry me?" "Ok" "Here's a ring" "Ta" "We're committed to getting married" "Aye we are" "Let's save up " "Ok"

Although I must stress again, I have no inside information on PPAG, SG, PP, PHS, MSP, or indeed IDO/DONT, so this is only my opinion.

[Porty]

Let's look at the chronology;

December 2008 – Full Council meeting decides they will not be taking the matter to court.
December 2008 – PPAG deputation to the Council states that they intend to launch a legal challenge.
June 2009 – A letter to the Evening News confirms PPAG’s intention to launch a legal action.
February 2010 - PPAG writes to the Council suggesting a joint court action.
March 2010 – Council replies saying no, as already decided, they will not be taking the matter to court.
March 2010 – Full Council meeting confirms that, as decided, they will not be taking the matter to court.
March 2010 – PPAG deputation to the Council states that they intend to launch a legal challenge.
September 2010 – PPAG writes to the Council stating that they intend to launch a legal challenge.
March 2011 – PPAG writes to the Council suggesting a joint court action.
April 2011 – Council replies saying no, as already decided, they will not be taking the matter to court.
July 2011 – PPAG finally launch a legal challenge.

The position the Council took in December ’08 remains unchanged, but what followed was a long drawn out process of PPAG threatening legal action but not bringing any, suggesting joint action and being rebuffed, threatening legal action but not bringing any, suggesting joint action and being rebuffed, then finally bringing an action after more than two-and-a-half years.
.

Apologies if i am about to misconstrue or misrepresent Scoop's opinion that the delay in legal action may have been down to lack of funds. I happen to agree with that opinion. They were hoping for funds or forthe council to fork out- but ultimately they had to go "shotgun"- time had run out, whether they had the funs or not, they had to move.

I am prepared to stand corrected but during all of that time, the first and only public fund raising event PPAG organised was the park run, late last year. No public fundraising in all of that time. If the delay was due to lack of funds, where did dig the money up from, and how deep are their pockets?

Were PPAG touting the supposed strength of their legal opinion to persuade some PAN to stump up enough for one day in court?

[seanie]

And a very important, if not sole consideration, is at what point could a legal challenge be made?

The original argument from PPAG was that the Council needed court authority to proceed with the school, in which case a legal action could've been brought as soon as the Council decided not to seek prior permission from the courts in December '08.

If, as now argued by PPAG, it is a legal impossibility for the school to be built on the land, then the site selection in December '06 could've been challenged.

Even if you take the granting of planning permission as a key decision, albeit one that PPAG aren't challenging, they still waited months before launching a legal action. A legal action they'd been threatening and fundraising for since early 2009 at the very latest.

[Porty]

thank you, Betty.

You are a good sport Reggie.

[rmolehusband]

thank you, Betty.

You are a good sport Reggie.

So who's Bob then?

[Scoop]

And a very important, if not sole consideration, is at what point could a legal challenge be made?

The original argument from PPAG was that the Council needed court authority to proceed with the school, in which case a legal action could've been brought as soon as the Council decided not to seek prior permission from the courts in December '08.

If, as now argued by PPAG, it is a legal impossibility for the school to be built on the land, then the site selection in December '06 could've been challenged.

Even if you take the granting of planning permission as a key decision, albeit one that PPAG aren't challenging, they still waited months before launching a legal action. A legal action they'd been threatening and fundraising for since early 2009 at the very latest.

None of us are in a position to comment on the timeline of PPAG. Maybe PPAG have been taking legal advice for longer than anyone can imagine, maybe legal advice from different lawyers with different approaches. Maybe it took a while to find a lawyer who got where PPAG were coming from. The law on common good ground appears to be notoriously complicated. But who knows? Who cares? It makes no difference. It is what it is, and trying to second guess someone else's motives is a fruitless task.

[seanie]

As I said before;

It's important that decisions can be challenged, and if the disparity in resources discourages that it's potentially harmful, which is why I support the idea of Protective Cost Orders. But reasonable delay is still an important consideration. In public cases like this, it’s prejudicial to good administration for actions not to be brought promptly, because decisions lead to actions with further consequences, some of them financial, and Councils can’t sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting for legal challenges that might never come.

It may well have been convenient for PPAG to delay a challenge for several years whilst they raise funds. But it's not reasonable since the Council can't twiddle their thumbs waiting for legal actions that might never come. Nor can the Council be expected to take themselves to court every time a third party says they should.

The issue is when, legally, PPAG could've brought a legal action, not when it suited them.

[Bob Jefferson]

thank you, Betty.

You are a good sport Reggie.

So who's Bob then?

Don't tell me. Am I Betty? I love these games.

[seashell]

thank you, Betty.

You are a good sport Reggie.

In the immortal words of Dick Emery - you are awful. But I like you!

First, I'm me, then I have children (wow, that was quick - I thought it took nine months), then I'm reg, then I'm Bob.

"I post - therefore I am all people. At different times"
"The world of porty online is the totality of screen ids. But not always."
with apologies to Descartes and Wittengenstein.

[seanie]

And the QC representing PPAG now, gave them a legal opinion that they referred to with great frequency back in 2006.

That they've been taking senior legal advice as far back as then is less excuse for the delay, not more.

[seashell]

]
So who's Bob then?

Don't tell me. Am I Betty? I love these games.[/quote]

And tonight, Matthew - I'm going to be Bob.
New Game Show: Stars in their Talk Porty Eyes.
Good game! (copyright Bruce Forsyth)

[Scoop]

"Counsel" must be an inside word.

Not at all. Errr - counsel = advocate. Actually common parlance in legal circles.

What you clearly appear to want to ask is - how come I know this? It's not anyone's business but mine. Nothing at all to do with being enigmatic.

Not at all, you are speculating again.
Of course I believe that you have no knowledge of the legal term 'counsel' and yet have intimate knowledge of how they tender their fees.

..but counsel is not "common parlance" (eh, say what?) in my circles.

And I don't believe that I was speculating, you're still fishing.

Of course I have knowledge of the term "counsel", silly to suggest otherwise, and yes, I do still have intimate knowledge of how they "tender" (really? tender?) their fees.

[Scoop]

And the QC representing PPAG now, gave them a legal opinion that they referred to with great frequency back in 2006.

That they've been taking senior legal advice as far back as then is less excuse for the delay, not more.

I'm pretty sure, wait, let me check, yes, I definitely did, say PERHAPS. Hey, Seashell, maybe I'm a dentist because let me tell you something, this is like pulling teeth!

[seanie]

You did use the word perhaps.

Because you were ignorant of whether that had or had not.

I'm not culpable for your ignorance.

[Scoop]

You did use the word perhaps.

Because you were ignorant of whether that had or had not.

I'm not culpable for your ignorance.

....but you are culpable for yours. Which you have just demonstrated better that I ever could have done.

[seashell]

Of course I have knowledge of the term "counsel", silly to suggest otherwise, and yes, I do still have intimate knowledge of how they "tender" (really? tender?) their fees.

If you know what counsel means, Scoop - why did you say in a previous post:
".... which I did, and then went on to give my reasons why I would not instruct "counsel" as you put it. "Counsel" must be an inside word." ?

That doesn't begin to make sense, if you know what the word means. You appear to be changing your position entirely. First you don't know what counsel means, but you know how they charge, then you do and say you always did. It's slightly confusing.
And 'counsel is the correct legal terminology.
And yes, they really do tender their fees.
How about we move on to something more riveting like a speculation about how expenses might be taxed? I'm sure you've got a lot to say about that.

[seanie]

....but you are culpable for yours. Which you have just demonstrated better that I ever could have done.

How so?

[Scoop]

Really?

[seanie]

Yes. Explain.

[Porty]

. It is what it is, and trying to second guess someone else's motives is a fruitless task.

I'm not second guessing, I know what PPAG's motives are; keeping the school out of their backyard.

You are right, it is what it is and if i can be so bold, we are where we are; in court. We are two days into a minimum three day hearing. PPAG have put their case and the council are about two thirds through theirs, yet to play their strongest suite. Fact not speculation.

Speculation-

• Its just after half time, the council are six nil up and about to bring on Ronaldo and Messi.
  
  PPAG are bankrolling themselves.Whatever funds they may have raised from the public, will not cover three days in court. They planned for one and got at least three.
  
  The bankrollers (one or mutiple) have been recruited on the strength of the opinion PPAG acquired in 2006 from Mr Roy Martion QC- who is now representing.
  
  Throughout this process, PPAG have made dozens of misrepresentations, deliberate or otherwise. I gather that during the court proceedings, on several occasions, Mr Martin has had to retract some statements made by PPAG, to the council, in various written communications. They over egged his advice, presenting it in a more favorable light.
  
  It is likely they did the same when persuading people to part with cash.(false pretences?)
  
  Now that things are real, the truth is beginning to unravel. To win PPAG need more money, they say so on their website.
  
  How much do they need? Well that's a moving feast. Should they lose they will likely be hit with the Councils costs.
  
  In my opinion, PPAG donaters, have begun to see the writing on the wall and with the exception of the kamikaze element, they won't be fancying the struggle ahead. A struggle with unknown financial implications.
  
  Time to cut and run, try to negotiate with the council not to pursue costs-

That's my opinion- we will see.

[Scoop]

Maybe their "counsel" capped his fees. That's a possibility. It happens. Maybe. Possibilty. . There I go being all ignorant again, Seanie.

[seanie]

....but you are culpable for yours. Which you have just demonstrated better that I ever could have done.

How so?

[Scoop]

Of course I have knowledge of the term "counsel", silly to suggest otherwise, and yes, I do still have intimate knowledge of how they "tender" (really? tender?) their fees.

If you know what counsel means, Scoop - why did you say in a previous post:
".... which I did, and then went on to give my reasons why I would not instruct "counsel" as you put it. "Counsel" must be an inside word." ?

That doesn't begin to make sense, if you know what the word means. You appear to be changing your position entirely. First you don't know what counsel means, but you know how they charge, then you do and say you always did. It's slightly confusing.
And 'counsel is the correct legal terminology.
And yes, they really do tender their fees.
How about we move on to something more riveting like a speculation about how expenses might be taxed? I'm sure you've got a lot to say about that.

Why does that not make sense? You, perhaps, need to re-read the post. I know "counsel" is the correct terminology. But backside is a word that is used when really one wants to say "arse".
Yes, they do "tender" their fees, although there are other words which can be used.
Oh my, you really have been fishing. I'm flattered, obviously, but really, you shouldn't have bothered going to all that trouble.