New Portobello High School- Where and how?

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 10 Nov 2006, 10:47

It would be hard for us to try and defend against an accusation against one sidedness, then, when one of the more vocal PPAG supporters removes every post they've made on the subject, wouldn't it? Of course it now looks much more one-sided than it did.

It's also rather odd that a schoolboard member so vocal in speaking out against new schools has decided to remove the public record of all those anti-schools in the park comments.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 10 Nov 2006, 10:51

Marya wrote:...Well, unfortunately, not many PPAG supporters choose to engage in any debate on this thread. It is not for lack of encouragement.

Of course not - it is for lack of a coherent argument.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Nov 2006, 12:51

Bellybabe wrote:It's also rather odd that a schoolboard member so vocal in speaking out against new schools has decided to remove the public record of all those anti-schools in the park comments.

Alison went through each post individually and deleted the words. She must be concerned about the implications of things she has said. Thank goodness we have back up and she is quoted thoughout this thread.

It is my contention that behind the scenes questions are being asked about the St John's response and how authentic it is? We know that there was collusion between PPAG and persons on the St John's Board, there was no demand from the School community for brownfield sites, none. It is purely a PPAG deisre.

I also suspect that Alison's act has something to do with this statement from the PPAG response to the consulltation.

PPAG Submission wrote: We support option A for St Johnâ€™s but we would also like the following brownfield sites to be reconsidered for St
Johnâ€™s, whose school board has publicly stated that it is against a rebuild on a greenfield site:.

PPAG produced this submission prior to the St John's School Board's own response to the consultation, which was not submitted until the very last day. They must have been confident that Alison could manipulate the Board to make this public statement. Unfirtunately something went badly wrong for PPAG ,as the public statement St John's Scholl Board actually made was:

"St Johnâ€™s Primary should be rebuilt on Portobello Park."

The complete opposite of what PPAG portray.

Alison let PPAG down or the murmurings in the community forced the School Board's hand.

We now have a situation where PPAG has submitted their official response and guessed wrongly about what St John's School Board would conclude. They got a fundamental factor completley and utterly wrong or it was a deliberate mis-rpresentation. Either way, the officials who look at the document are bound to realise how poorly reserached the whole thing is.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 10 Nov 2006, 14:56

It is indeed a pity that Alison deleted her posts, but I have now spoken to her and understand her explanation. I feel it is an even greater shame that Alison no longer wants to post on POL. She was one of only a few prepared to argue the case against building on the Park and fought a very lonely and brave battle at times. Not a position I think anyone would relish.

Regarding Alison's role as a parent representative on St John's School Board, I trust her to always act as her conscience dictates. She demonstrated her commitment to St John's by standing as a parent candidate and winning the election, long before the prospect of new schools arose. Speculation about what is happening behind the scenes is, of course, just that - speculation.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Nov 2006, 15:58

There is really good article in tonights Evening News by Colin Cumberland. I can't find an on-line link. Its not totally relevant to Portobello Park but there are some critical similarities. And some gems from the Scottish Executive.

Its about the development at Meggetland, ( I'm fairly sure that any among us who have played there will confirm that it was hellish) and is entitled "Building on pitches pays off for sports"

If someone can find a link i would appreciate it.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Nov 2006, 16:17

PPAG are going through a "cleansing" operation where they are removing the references to building on Figgate Park etc. I've heard they are denying they ever said it. Which is astonishing in itself, the evidence is all over the evening news and will be minuted at the council meetings. You won't find the following letter on www.portygreenkeepers.org.uk any longer but I had the foresight to keep a copy and a screen capture.

Dear Park Supporter

The council has produced its report on the investigation into site options for the re-provisioning of Portobello High School and St John's Primary School.

The Council's Executive will consider the report and ask for permission to start consultation at a meeting on Tuesday 12 September. You can find a copy of the report at:

http://cpol.edinburgh.gov.uk/getdoc_ext.asp?DocId=87316

but please be aware that it takes several minutes to download. There are also copies of the feasibility studies in Portobello Library.

The options they have identified as suitable for PHS are: the current site (but only if St John's moves elsewhere), Portobello Park and Portobello Golf Course (for some reason they are considering these last two as separate locations).

The options for St John's are are the current site (but only if PHS moves elsewhere), Portobello Park, Portobello Golf Course and Bingham Park.

We believe that some of the options they have dismissed should be reconsidered.

Your response to the previous report was fantastic last time and resulted in major amendments to the decision made by the Council.

So, if you are concerned, please write, before 12 September, to the councillors listed at the bottom of this message (you can copy and paste their names into the address field of your e-mail), making the following points.

We believe the council should reconsider the following options, not having given adequate reasons in the report for the their rejection:

A rebuild on site for Portobello High School and a refurbishment on site for St John's. The previous feasibility studies indicated that this was possible so why has this option been ignored? No adequate reason has been given for this omission. A rebuild and refurbish for both schools on their existing sites should be consulted upon.

The Powerleague site has been dismissed as too small for Portobello High School but why is it not being considered for St John's? This option should be in the consultation options for St John's.

The Figgate Park is dismissed as an option for a rebuild of St John's because of risk of flooding. This site is only one metre below the level of the current St John's and a good ten metres above the level of the burn; the risk of flooding is negligible and could be totally eliminated. This site should be consulted upon for St John's.

The Freightliner site is dismissed because to build on it would be against the local plan but so would building on the golf course or park. It is said that it is needed for industrial use but there is already a surplus of industrial land in the area, for example, at Baileyfield. The site is also criticised for being between a busy road and a railway line but so is the golf course/park. The Freightliner site should be consulted upon as an option for Portobello High School and/or St John's.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 10 Nov 2006, 17:55

Porty wrote:There is really good article in tonights Evening News by Colin Cumberland. If someone can find a link i would appreciate it.

Seems to pay-per-view article!

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 10 Nov 2006, 17:58

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/opini ... 1664652006

Is this the article you were referring to Porty?

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 10 Nov 2006, 18:10

SoupDragon wrote:http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/opini ... 1664652006

Is this the article you were referring to Porty?

Think it is, Mrs Soupdragon - but when I tried to open it from the headline in the EN site it came up with a log-in prompt. Have you got special dragon powers?!

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 10 Nov 2006, 18:15

Poppy wrote:
Have you got special dragon powers?!

Only with soup. EN site can be funny sometimes almost like it needs to warm up some days, or they're waiting folks to buy the paper. It's free join online and once logged in you can post comments on some articles

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Nov 2006, 18:19

Yes that is the one and thanks very much SP:

Portobello Park could be turned into something really magical and if it can be done at Meggatland then planning etc at Portobello ought to be achievable.

I think 12% housing would be a wortwhile trade for quality sports facilities but I gues that an argument for another time.

"MSPs came out against the proposal to build homes in order to invest in quality sports facilities. None of them, however, were able to point the city council in the direction of an alternative source of finance for improving the pitches.

I was delighted when the Scottish Executive's independent public inquiry ruled in favour of our partnership proposals. The inquiry found the proposal would allow 50 per cent more useable pitch space than was then
available and that the local area and the city were well provided with pitches.

The inquiry reporter also found the vastly-improved changing facilities would be likely to encourage greater participation in sport. I particularly welcomed his comments that the creation of a park and the associated landscaping would improve what he described as a "windswept site with a collection of dilapidated buildings".

Now the construction of the new sports pitches and indoor facilities is complete, it is appropriate to reflect on this development in particular and the issue of building on sports fields in general. Indeed the Executive is consulting on a review of Scottish Planning Policy 11, Physical Activity and Open Space. Interestingly the Executive's document does not propose a total ban on developments on playing fields.

It argues that the main objective should be to ensure there are sufficient playing fields in terms of "quantity, quality and accessibility to satisfy demand within the community". Playing fields, the Executive argues, should not be developed except where, for example, the proposed development upgrades "an existing playing field to provide a better quality facility".
And this gets to the heart of the issue. There is no point in having acres and acres of sports fields if they are unusable. Research carried out by the council into the use of Meggetland showed that there was a consistent decline in the hiring of the sports pitches due to their abysmal quality.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Nov 2006, 19:00

I am very disappointed that Alison has chosen to delete all of her posts and can see no sense in this action. I can understand why she may no longer wish to participate in this thread. I appreciate that her dual roles of school board member and a prominent PPAG supporter must be difficult to balance and put her under a good deal of scrutiny.

It is my personal belief that PPAG lost the debate a long time ago and that has led to the difficulty that their supporters have experienced on this thread. It has been a very difficult topic to moderate because people have very strong feelings on the subject. The moderators have done their level best to find a balance, to uphold the principle of free speech while enforcing the posting guidelines in a fair and consistent manner.

Clearly, not everyone feels that they have succeeded in this. Nevertheless, Portobello Online remains committed to facilitating debate and discussion on this and other matters of importance to the community.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Nov 2006, 19:08

It may not be of interest but in looking into the Peebles case I came across the report produced at the end of the same statutory consultation we've been through. It shows the sort of thing we should expect come December. It lists the numbers for and against, separated into statutory and non-statutory consultees, and summarises the points made and responds to them.

http://www.scotborders.gov.uk/pdf/17293.pdf

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 10 Nov 2006, 21:51

Very interesting. When it comes to grasping at straws, these guys put PPAG to shame:

Hazards stated by opponents to the site included risk of pupils being hit by stray golf balls from the adjoining golf course, children being damaged by grave stones falling on them, children drowning in the Tweed which is near (although not adjacent) to Neidpath Grazings and the risk of paedophiles kidnapping children from the A72.

Remiss of them though not to mention the risk of pupils being struck by lightning or flattened by meteorites.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 10 Nov 2006, 23:51

I must say I'm suprised that the increased risk of alien abduction wasn't pointed out.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 11 Nov 2006, 01:03

PortyMan wrote: That's 8 Council-droids, a solitary 'confused of Porty' and just the one 'Friend of the Earth'!

Where am I in this PortyMan?

I've been following the debate online and through the Evening News but have as yet never expressed an opinion . I had assumed I was the "Confused" after I posted the comment about Holyrood still being out to tender , but you say it's Dadaist thats "confused" so which am I?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 11 Nov 2006, 02:01

Bob Jefferson wrote:Very interesting. When it comes to grasping at straws, these guys put PPAG to shame:

Hazards stated by opponents to the site included risk of pupils being hit by stray golf balls from the adjoining golf course, children being damaged by grave stones falling on them, children drowning in the Tweed which is near (although not adjacent) to Neidpath Grazings and the risk of paedophiles kidnapping children from the A72.

I don't think you should be too hard on PPAG, after all, as Portyman recently informed us in the Evening News; a large contingent of PPAG supporters are Texas based. They have no idea of the local threats to our children should they locate to the park, which is no doubt haunted by the ghost of the benefactor who gifted it so many years ago.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 11 Nov 2006, 14:50

Porty wrote:PPAG are going through a "cleansing" operation where they are removing the references to building on Figgate Park etc. I've heard they are denying they ever said it.

That may be so, but their latest news update from 8 September still states categorically:

The Figgate Park is dismissed as an option for a rebuild of St John's because of risk of flooding. This site is only one metre below the level of the current St John's and a good ten metres above the level of the burn; the risk of flooding is negligible and could be totally eliminated. This site should be consulted upon for St John's.

This is of course at odds with the official PPAG submission, which drops Figgate Park as a site to be consulted upon, though they still claim that it could provide playing fields for a PHS re-built on site.

So, do we have the results of the St Johns parents questionnaire yet?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 12 Nov 2006, 16:53

SoupDragon wrote:
PortyMan wrote: That's 8 Council-droids, a solitary 'confused of Porty' and just the one 'Friend of the Earth'!
Where am I in this PortyMan?

Portyman doesn't normally do answers but maybe there's another reason for his silence?

Portyman could well be in Arkansas on the campaign trail, diggng up more signatures for PPAG petition for a consultation. They really do have international support for decanting our children.

I wouldn't be surprised if he drops in on the Navajo and trys to persuade them to exhume some of their ancestors remains for re-burial in Portobello Park. if it comes to it, it may just sway the planning decison.

PPAG get the remains of Big Chief Commongood, Little running gifthorseQC and a few others, they sneak into the Park under the cover of broad daylight when there's no-one around,(Any saturday afternoon would be good) wait til darkness falls and overnight Portobello Park becomes a sacred red indian burial ground.

It may sound far-fetched but it has more credibility than most of their other arguments.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 Nov 2006, 19:49

I found this on the Canongate Community Forum

Common Good 14th Nov 2006

The Local Goverment and Transport Committeeâ€™s meeting will be held at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 14 November, in the Scottish Parliament.

Agenda now up on Parliament's website including background papers re Common Good:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/busin ... p06-28.pdf

At 2.00pm the Committee will be taking evidence on the Common Good from Andy Wightman, via live weblink as he is presently in Ethiopia. At approximately 3.30pm, the three petitioners - Mary Mackenzie, David Harvie and Sally Richardson will appear as a panel together and this session will last for approximately Â¾ hr to an hour. Members of the Committee will put questions to them on their petitions, re the Common Good.

Should you wish to attend the meeting, tickets can be booked through the Scottish Parliament`s Visitor Services on 0131 348 5200. A free creche is available at the Parliament for children up to 5 years of age.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 12 Nov 2006, 20:09

Where did I find out about the Canongate Community Forum? Through the links page on the Porty Greenkeepers site. A lot of these campaign groups offer mutual links. PPAG is asking people from Canongate to sign their petition. Are they part of the Portobello community? Are they able to make an informed decision?

Or do they think:

'Cool. Another worthy cause to put my name to. Something about saving green space.'

We at Portygreenkeepers offer you our full support in trying to save common good assets. We ourselves are having a difficult time trying to save our local park and golf course, for which there is a LEGAL OPINION from Roy Martin QC to the effect that it is Common Good Land .

So far the council have refused under the freedom of information act to allow us relevant information about this case, quoting section 36.

We believe that it is in the public interest to have the full information about the issue in order for anyone to make an informed decision. We can help to prove this by getting as many people to sign our petition as possible

Edinburgh Council are presently trying to build on the park and Golf course. The whole of Portobello Community are wanting new schools, however we believe that there are alternative sites for this venture and that Portobello Park and Golf course should not be built upon.

Please help us by signing our petition online etc

'Right, that's good enough for me. Where do I sign?'

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 12 Nov 2006, 23:13

"So far the council have refused under the freedom of information act to allow us relevant information about this case, quoting section 36."

I take it section 36 gives protection to parties that have paid for legal advice? I'm assuming they can invoke section 36 to protect their position. If so, it is a very good idea. it is just, fair and reasonable otherwise one party could pay for no legal advice and simply use their advesaries.

PPAG are attempting to validate the ground as common. For what purpose? Are schools not in the common good? What is the point of making the council shift money from one account to another? The only conclusion i can reach is PPAG are using it as a delaying tactic. Its a game of poker, their hand is very weak but hey its not their own children's education they are gambling with so its not costing them anything.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 13 Nov 2006, 00:21

Legal advice is privileged. Client confidentiality etc.

It's normally protected from FOI requests though not in all circumstances.

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 13 Nov 2006, 11:50

Try reading this if you want to know about s36 of FOI/Andy Wightman/Council/lose the will to live(!). Seanie's succinct reply covers it!

http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/appe ... on6159.htm

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 13 Nov 2006, 12:49

If my understanding is correct the council were able to sell land that was definitley held in the common good account for the benefit of the common good (in this case new headquarters) without having to go to court to get permission. And they used the proceeds for the common good without having to reimburse the account.

To me, it has not even been established tha PP is CGL but if it does turn out to be; big deal. The cosequences are inconsequential.

I also understand the reason why the FOI request was refused and think it is fair enough.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 13 Nov 2006, 19:27

Common Good 14th Nov 2006

The Local Goverment and Transport Committeeâ€™s meeting will be held at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 14 November, in the Scottish Parliament.

Agenda now up on Parliament's website including background papers re Common Good:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/busin ... p06-28.pdf

At 2.00pm the Committee will be taking evidence on the Common Good from Andy Wightman, via live weblink as he is presently in Ethiopia. At approximately 3.30pm, the three petitioners - Mary Mackenzie, David Harvie and Sally Richardson will appear as a panel together and this session will last for approximately Â¾ hr to an hour. Members of the Committee will put questions to them on their petitions, re the Common Good.

Should you wish to attend the meeting, tickets can be booked through the Scottish Parliament`s Visitor Services on 0131 348 5200. A free creche is available at the Parliament for children up to 5 years of age.

Further to this, the meeting takes place in Committee Room I and the proceedings can be viewed live online (and via the archive for one month thereafter) on Holyrood TV.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 13 Nov 2006, 22:39

Porty wrote:If my understanding is correct the council were able to sell land that was definitley held in the common good account for the benefit of the common good (in this case new headquarters) without having to go to court to get permission. And they used the proceeds for the common good without having to reimburse the account.

From what I've read there are two classes of common good land, alienable and inalienable.

I haven't found a precise definition but inalienable appears to apply to land granted by royal charter, gifted or bequeathed with conditions. When dealing with such land approval may be required from the Court of Session.

It appears there's more latitude with alienable land. In the case of the Peebles school the land was considered alienable.

Neidpath Grazings

i. The proposed alternative site brought forward by the local elected members is Neidpath Grazings, an area of land owned by the Peebles Common Good Fund.

j. This Common Good Land was originally sold to the predecessor authority to Scottish Borders Council in 1919.

k. Before bringing this site to the authority, the Peebles councillors held informal discussions with local community groups who were content for the suggestion to be explored.

l. The first step the authority undertook was to seek Counselâ€™s opinion on use of the site. Having reviewed the papers related to the sale of the site from 1919, Counselâ€™s opinion was that use of the land for a school would be acceptable and as an alienable transfer would not need Court of Sessions approval.

Bob Jefferson · Post by **Bob Jefferson** » 14 Nov 2006, 18:35

Hugh Henry is to succeed Peter Peacock as education minister, the Scottish Executive has confirmed.

"I have been absolutely stunned by the quality of the new schools I am seeing in my own area of Renfrewshire," he said.

"I want to make sure that follows through to its completion - I don't want anyone, whoever they are, to do anything that will destabilise that building programme."

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 14 Nov 2006, 21:28

Bob Jefferson wrote:
Further to this, the meeting takes place in Committee Room I and the proceedings can be viewed live online (and via the archive for one month thereafter) on Holyrood TV.

I listened to it the best i could at work today and plan to listen to the lot when I get a chance (its not archived yet). Did anyone else listen?

Charles · Post by **Charles** » 17 Nov 2006, 14:44

I've already said this on the "wider issues" topic, but in case anyone who read this topic hasn't seen it there:

Just a few thoughts for anyone interested in the Common Good Question:

PPAGâ€™s legal opinion was provided by Roy Martin QC (Dean of the Faculty of Advocates)
He specialises in parliamentary, administrative, environmental and land law, in particular town and country planning and commercial landlord and tenant. He has acted for private developers, planning authorities and public utilities. He has appeared at inquiries and in applications for judicial review in relation to developments concerning minerals, retail, housing, leisure, waste, power generation, transport projects and others, and in matters related to compulsory acquisition. He has represented both landlords and tenants in relation to commercial property, and acted in the leading cases in Scotland on covenants to trade. He has appeared and advised in matters relating to the devolved institutions in Scotland and the incorporation into domestic law of the European Convention on Human Rights. He has appeared several times as leading counsel in the House of Lords.
His appointments include Chairman of the Scottish Planning Local Government and Environmental Bar Group 1991-1996;Affiliate of the Royal Incorporation of Architects in Scotland

As you can see from above, Roy Martin is well qualified to provide opinion on land issues and therefore his opinion regarding the fact that Portobello Park is Common Good Land is highly relevant to the Councilâ€™s current proposal to appropriate Portobello Park for the purpose of building schools.

It is also highly relevant that the law is such that Common Good Land cannot be used for statutory functions. Education is a statutory function.

At the Local Government and Transport Committee yesterday, Mr Wightman, an expert on common good land gave an excellent account of the abuses of common good land in Scotland. He gave Angus Council as an example of Best Practice as regards its handling of common good assets, and slated Edinburgh, giving as an example the Â£1 per annum rent they secured for Waverly shopping centre.

A petitioner at the Parliamentary Committee stated that Councillors are unaware of their responsibilities as trustees of the common good fund, or indeed of what the common good fund assets actually are. The petitioner sought to have the legislation of the old act updated to make sure that there was accountability, where presently there appears to be none. Essentially the petition is to make sure that existing law is enforced

The petitioner stated that the councils, nationwide, had a responsibility to list all of the assets, and map them so that people could see at a glance where the lands/buildings were and what other assets were and to have them re-assessed at todays prices so that the people could know what the assets were worth in monetary terms.

It is very unlikely that the City of Edinburgh Council will be able to progress with any proposal to build on Portobello Park without going through a very lengthy, very expensive, and potentially unsuccessful legal process.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 17 Nov 2006, 15:03

Please refer to the 'wider issues' thread for my response.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 17 Nov 2006, 22:57

Charles wrote:I've already said this on the "wider issues" topic...

It might be better to pick a thread and stick to it.

Otherwise we'll have to start posting all our responses twice, which doesn't seem very sensible.

PortyMan · Post by **PortyMan** » 22 Nov 2006, 10:59

Bellybabe wrote:... so vocal in speaking out against new schools...

That's exactly the kind of bias/slant/skew of which we speak. (That and the sad, 'low-life' type comments and the constant 'digs' - playground stuff).

No one, as far as I'm aware, is 'speaking out against new schools'? A large number of people are trying to preserve a Public Park.

As for 'not answering', Porty... Can we ever expect to see the results of the PHS survey? And I mean 'results', not your curiously emasculated percentage figures - 8 out of 10 cats style... Seems a simple request, why the reluctance?

Oh, and Bob - so how does Porty's post about Navajo indians and Arkansas progress the debate? (Funny song though, Porty, very good. No attribution, I notice? You had better watch, those guys are pretty litigious, I believe).

Ah well, back to world travels... 708 and rising...

moderated

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Nov 2006, 11:33

PortyMan wrote: [No one, as far as I'm aware, is 'speaking out against new schools'?

If we base this debate on what you "are aware of" we'd be in big trouble. You were aware and quite possibly are still aware that you had bought a perpetual view of an unbulit on Portobello park.

PPAG are speaking out for a below minimun recommended standards PHS without playing fields and without a solution for St John's. And without a funding prospect.

It may not be speaking out against new schools in the literal sense but it amounts to the same thing. You want one inadequatre school, a school on an unidentifiable site and you have identified no credible funding solution. Unless you think the SE are going to fund an inadequate school, and put up enough money for a brownfield site, which isn't available in the first place.

PortyMan wrote: A large number of people are trying to preserve a Public Park.

I still don't know your source for this claim?

I do know that PPAG are trying to preserve one public park and suggesting that another public park is sacrificed instead.

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 22 Nov 2006, 12:32

PortyMan wrote:.As for 'not answering', Porty... Can we ever expect to see the results of the PHS survey?

As I have stated previoulsy the results of the survey (s) will be published as part of the consultation report (I assume in the manner of the Peebles document that Seanie posted a link to) and I expect they will also be published on the COEC website.

I don't know why you are so against percentage analysis, it is a widely accepted and used method for reporting the results of Polls. What I will say is that in sensitive debates like the one we are having here there are two recognised patterns.

Firstly, those people who are strongly for or against any proposal are sure to make their views known and most likely to respond to a survey.

Secondly, the "save a park" message is an easy one to sell and those people who swither can be easily convinced that a park is worth saving.

When it comes to saving a park I would expect any survey to be weighted in favour of saving tha park, as activists will respond and switherers will favour the park. (same goes for petitions, particularly deceptive ones) Therefore I would expect the support for Option A to be overstated and I'm sure that in this case it has been.

Talk Porty ~ Portobello

New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Re: Evening News Online comments re. POL and its Mods

Re: Self-Abuse?

Re: Self-Abuse?