New Schools Proposal - The Wider Issues
It would seem that this post has been taken far too literally, and for that I apologise - I didn't set out to mislead anyone into thinking that I thought that there might be individuals with a less than entirely positive approach - I thought it was clear from the tone of this post that I was feigning naivety.
I would be upset if it was uncovered that any individuals had joined a school board with the intention of subverting its purpose to suit an agenda - in this case, the issue of PHS/St Johns and the park. (1)
I'd also be upset if it was uncovered that any individuals had joined the community council with the intention of subverting its purpose to suit an agenda too! (2)
I'm sure that Alison's dual roles as a member of St Johns board and also as a member of PPAG are handled properly. (3)
I'm also sure that nobody would join the community council just to try and push their side of one issue. (4)
I applaud all those who selflessly volounteer to serve our community. (5)
--------------------------------
Footnotes
(1) Trying to make a parallel between the actions of a couple of our forum members, without explicitly saying "one or more of youse is bent!"
(2) Same approach as (1) but for the CC "zealots".
(3) Trying to highlight the blatant conflict between being a member of both groups.
(4) I give up over this. It's a complete ringer and I never thought it would need italics. But there you go. I meant it in the most leading and sarcastic manner I could muster and never gave a moment's thought somebody would think I actually thought like that.
(5) ... and certainly don't applaud those who join to suit one agenda. Next time, I'll use italics and explanatory footnotes at the time of publishing.
I would be upset if it was uncovered that any individuals had joined a school board with the intention of subverting its purpose to suit an agenda - in this case, the issue of PHS/St Johns and the park. (1)
I'd also be upset if it was uncovered that any individuals had joined the community council with the intention of subverting its purpose to suit an agenda too! (2)
I'm sure that Alison's dual roles as a member of St Johns board and also as a member of PPAG are handled properly. (3)
I'm also sure that nobody would join the community council just to try and push their side of one issue. (4)
I applaud all those who selflessly volounteer to serve our community. (5)
--------------------------------
Footnotes
(1) Trying to make a parallel between the actions of a couple of our forum members, without explicitly saying "one or more of youse is bent!"
(2) Same approach as (1) but for the CC "zealots".
(3) Trying to highlight the blatant conflict between being a member of both groups.
(4) I give up over this. It's a complete ringer and I never thought it would need italics. But there you go. I meant it in the most leading and sarcastic manner I could muster and never gave a moment's thought somebody would think I actually thought like that.
(5) ... and certainly don't applaud those who join to suit one agenda. Next time, I'll use italics and explanatory footnotes at the time of publishing.
Last edited by Dadaist on 10 Oct 2006, 18:39, edited 1 time in total.
I'm neither inferring nor implying that this is the case. I am saying that the fact the SJSB were raising questions about PL or SP is strange as there are no educational grounds for doing so. There is no advantage to be had for St John's. I have asked for some to be demonstrated but to no avail. .The desire to explore re-location to those sites makes it consistent with PPAG objectives. It may well be a coincidence.Dadaist wrote: I would be upset if it was uncovered that any individuals had joined a school board with the intention of subverting its purpose to suit an agenda - in this case, the issue of PHS/St Johns and the park..
Don't think you should worry about getting too upset as the CC has 30 members and hasn't had a vote in living memory. Did you know the schools issue wasn't even on the last agenda and it didn't get a mention.Dadaist wrote: I'd also be upset if it was uncovered that any individuals had joined the community council with the intention of subverting its purpose to suit an agenda too!.
If you have been following these pages over the last few days you will have seen Alison suggest puting St John's primary on Portobello Park. This is not aligned with the PPAG view and is not aligned with St John's School Board view either, at least up until now.Dadaist wrote:I 'm sure that Alison's dual roles as a member of St Johns board and also as a member of PPAG are handled properly..
Jackie Brock did and quite a few others too. You need to brush up on your CC make up.Dadaist wrote: I'm also sure that nobody would join the community council just to try and push their side of one issue..
why would some people join the community council?
Let's make sure I'm reading this right. Porty. are you saying that you joined the community council because you wanted to make a contribution to Portobello life and that your personal viewpoint on the High School debate had nothing to do with it? If that is the case it's a shame you didn't join years ago but it's reassuring to know that you will be with us long after the High School is rebuilt. Portobello needs more selfless community spirited people like yourself and Jackie Brock to fight our corner for us. The future of Portobello is in good hands.
Prom cycling for all.
Campaign groups represented on the CC
Dadaist, Jackie Brock represents PFANS on the Community council, just as PPAG, PCATS and other local interest/campaign groups also have nominated representatives. I do believe there is even a Labour Party representative....
Elected Members:
Celia Butterworth
Dawson Currie
Alix Gaffney
Robert Gatliff
Stephen Hawkins
Bob Jefferson
Stephen McIntyre
Nora McKenzie
Avril Scott
John Smart
Alex Smith
Tom Smith
Nick Stroud
William Wilson
Betty Young
Local Groups (with reps where known)
Portobello Community Centre, Amnesty International, Labour Party, PFANS (Jackie Brock), PCATS (Diana Cairns), Portobello Online (Maria Devoy), 143 Squadron Air Training Corps, Citizens Advice Bureau (Kathleen Hart), PPAG (Karen McLean), Portobello Reporter (Brenda Molony), History Society (Margaret Munro), Brightons Residents Association (Tom Nimmo), Traders Association (Sheila Scott), Portobello Amenity Society (John Stewart)
Marya - I made this post as a direct response to something Porty raised in his excellent PHS thread. If the issue of coincidental CC membership is a "wider" issue, how come the issue of Alison's coincidental agenda is not?Dadaist wrote:I would be upset if it was uncovered that any individuals had joined a school board with the intention of subverting its purpose to suit an agenda - in this case, the issue of PHS/St Johns and the park.
I'd also be upset if it was uncovered that any individuals had joined the community council with the intention of subverting its purpose to suit an agenda too!
I'm sure that Alison's dual roles as a member of St Johns board and also as a member of PPAG are handled properly.
I'm also sure that nobody would join the community council just to try and push their side of one issue.
I applaud all those who selflessly volounteer to serve our community.
Tom. why the personal attack?
You seem to be keen to have a personal pop at me so here's my two cents: I believe I have contributed positively to Portobello life for the last 47 years, whether that be personally, family-wise or commercially. I feel I am qualified to contribute to the schools debate having attended Brunstane, Duddingston and portobello high and having children who attended St John's and Portobello High. I've also served for a total of 8 years on St John's and Towerbank school boards. I am the guardian of children who will attend the new PHS. Perhaps you think that's all worthless? I admit I have not been involved in politics at all until recently. Ironically until I began supporting PCATS.
No I'm not saying that at all, I am happy to confirm that the school issue was my main motivation. What on earth is wrong with that? There was a perception that PCC were not going to be supportive of new schools, as it turns out they have been hostile. IMHO the few of us who are supporters of new schools are am effective deterrent to the largely ignorant or plain dis-interested. If all we achieve is nullification then that's good enough.tom nimmo wrote: Let's make sure I'm reading this right. Porty. are you saying that you joined the community council because you wanted to make a contribution to Portobello life and that your personal viewpoint on the High School debate had nothing to do with it?
You seem to be keen to have a personal pop at me so here's my two cents: I believe I have contributed positively to Portobello life for the last 47 years, whether that be personally, family-wise or commercially. I feel I am qualified to contribute to the schools debate having attended Brunstane, Duddingston and portobello high and having children who attended St John's and Portobello High. I've also served for a total of 8 years on St John's and Towerbank school boards. I am the guardian of children who will attend the new PHS. Perhaps you think that's all worthless? I admit I have not been involved in politics at all until recently. Ironically until I began supporting PCATS.
I'm not making any long-term commitment. In fact I fully expect to resume my normal level of interest in local politics once either Option C or B are irrevocably on course. What's eating you?tom nimmo wrote: If that is the case it's a shame you didn't join years ago but it's reassuring to know that you will be with us long after the High School is rebuilt. Portobello needs more selfless community spirited people like yourself and Jackie Brock to fight our corner for us. The future of Portobello is in good hands.
What might be percieved as "wrong", Porty, is the fact that you're currently seeing nothing wrong with infiltrating the community council with the specific agenda of PHS relocation in mind, whilst denying any implication or inference of accusing Alison of infiltrating the St John's school board with the specific agenda of PHS relocation in mind.
Were people to make the (incorrect, you say) inference or implication having read your volumious "coincidental" facts with regards to Alison's joint membership of the St John's board and PPAG, I would not think it amiss if they thought that there was a smell of double standards.
Were people to make the (incorrect, you say) inference or implication having read your volumious "coincidental" facts with regards to Alison's joint membership of the St John's board and PPAG, I would not think it amiss if they thought that there was a smell of double standards.
Your post drew a parallel between membership of the School Board and membership of the CC, causing the thread to veer off into discussion of whether it is moral or not to be a 'single issue' member of the CC . This is when discussion was moved to this thread. Not that confusing at all.Dadaist wrote:Marya - I made this post as a direct response to something Porty raised in his excellent PHS thread. If the issue of coincidental CC membership is a "wider" issue, how come the issue of Alison's coincidental agenda is not?
Incorrect. Had I wanted to start a discussion on whether it was moral to be a single issue member of the CC I would have done. My point is intimately tied in with the current debate between Porty and Alison, which I was attempting to add to, and you have removed it from its rightful home.Marya wrote:Your post drew a parallel between membership of the School Board and membership of the CC, causing the thread to veer off into discussion of whether it is moral or not to be a 'single issue' member of the CC . This is when discussion was moved to this thread. Not that confusing at all.Dadaist wrote:Marya - I made this post as a direct response to something Porty raised in his excellent PHS thread. If the issue of coincidental CC membership is a "wider" issue, how come the issue of Alison's coincidental agenda is not?
You are wide of the mark. I have no idea if Alison is the only PPAG supporter that is also a SJSB member. I don't know who the others are.? Alison happened to deliver the deputation to the council on behalf of the school board when no reference was made to 3 of the 4 available options.Dadaist wrote:Were people to make the (incorrect, you say) inference or implication having read your volumious "coincidental" facts with regards to Alison's joint membership of the St John's board and PPAG, I would not think it amiss if they thought that there was a smell of double standards.
Up until now the behaviour and strategy demonstrated by SJSB is consistent with the objectives of PPAG, not of a school board looking to secure a new school. There has been no explanation forthcoming as to why St John's were enquiring after a more expensive poorly located school?
I have to coorect your assertion about the debate between myself and Alison. I'm debating with Alison in her role as SJSB board member not personally.
How very interesting. Imagine if the situation were allowed to transpire that the community council started behaving and strategising in a manner consistent with the objectives of PFANS, not of a community council!Porty wrote:the behaviour and strategy demonstrated by SJSB is consistent with the objectives of PPAG, not of a school board looking to secure a new school.
Regardless of your intentions Dadaist that is what ensued. It would have made no sense to move the subsequent posts without also moving the one which had given rise to the discussion. This is my final post on this matter.Dadaist wrote:Incorrect. Had I wanted to start a discussion on whether it was moral to be a single issue member of the CC I would have done.Marya wrote:Your post drew a parallel between membership of the School Board and membership of the CC, causing the thread to veer off into discussion of whether it is moral or not to be a 'single issue' member of the CC . This is when discussion was moved to this thread. Not that confusing at all.Dadaist wrote:Marya - I made this post as a direct response to something Porty raised in his excellent PHS thread. If the issue of coincidental CC membership is a "wider" issue, how come the issue of Alison's coincidental agenda is not?
I can understand why it's your final post - cos you're wrong!
There is no difference between Porty asking Alison about the agenda of St John's board with respect to PHS relocation, and me asking Porty about him asking Alison about the agenda of St John's board with respect to PHS relocation with respect to the CC agenda.
Morality of single-issue CC membership is a seperate subject, I was following on from and contributing to an ongoing topic when you decided to prune me.
Thanks for clearing up the fact that it was the discussion that ensued that you objected to - this means that I can replace a better-worded reaction to Porty's questioning of Alison back where it belongs, as long as it doesn't lead to a discussion on the morality of single-issue CC membership. Thanks!
There is no difference between Porty asking Alison about the agenda of St John's board with respect to PHS relocation, and me asking Porty about him asking Alison about the agenda of St John's board with respect to PHS relocation with respect to the CC agenda.
Morality of single-issue CC membership is a seperate subject, I was following on from and contributing to an ongoing topic when you decided to prune me.
Thanks for clearing up the fact that it was the discussion that ensued that you objected to - this means that I can replace a better-worded reaction to Porty's questioning of Alison back where it belongs, as long as it doesn't lead to a discussion on the morality of single-issue CC membership. Thanks!
-
Alison Connelly
Yes its true. I stood for election for the community council in April (I think) but never had to prepare a manifesto as there was no election. I was invited to join PHS board by Andrew Fraser the chair. Partly due to my long-connection with the school and my known support for a new schools. I did not stand for election, I did not ask to be co-opted. i was approached unannonced approximately 3 minutes after I met Alison Connelly for the first time on the evening of of the parental exclusion meeting at Towerbank.
What use are the opinions and pronouncements of school boards and community councils if they are stuffed with supporters of the various campaigns?
Shouldn't the council give up wasting its time consulting them and just head straight to PFANS and PPAG to find out what the agenda is that they were infiltrating these groups to promote anyway?
Shouldn't the council give up wasting its time consulting them and just head straight to PFANS and PPAG to find out what the agenda is that they were infiltrating these groups to promote anyway?
I'm annoyed at allowing myself to be side-tracked. The issue is why are St John's School Board writing to the school community using falsehoods and partial information to seek to influence a move to an of-centre catchment school when there are better, cheaper, safer and delliverable options?
It is very questionable behaviour for any Schhol Board.
It is very questionable behaviour for any Schhol Board.
Community Councils are meant to be a vehicle whereby the views of the community can be expressed to their Local Authority, and are a statutory consultee on various matters. But most people, in most communities, are pretty much oblivious to the existence let alone the workings of their local Community Council, so their representative role isn’t always easy to fulfil.
There’s always the danger that Community Councils can end up only really representing the views of the small number of people with the time, interest and boredom threshold required to sit through very, very, very dull meetings.
There’s always the danger that Community Councils can end up only really representing the views of the small number of people with the time, interest and boredom threshold required to sit through very, very, very dull meetings.
You mention time, interest and boredom threshold. I would also add zealotry to this mix - it would seem that there are people amongst us who are willing to tolerate these meetings just on the strength of their personal agenda, and the willpower that being 101% convinced you're right must give you. I would imagine.seanie wrote:Community Councils are meant to be a vehicle whereby the views of the community can be expressed to their Local Authority, and are a statutory consultee on various matters. But most people, in most communities, are pretty much oblivious to the existence let alone the workings of their local Community Council, so their representative role isn’t always easy to fulfil.
There’s always the danger that Community Councils can end up only really representing the views of the small number of people with the time, interest and boredom threshold required to sit through very, very, very dull meetings.