New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Dave Connelly]

..... or who ,personally, are not likely in some way to benefit directly from this project?

This is the third or fourth suggestion or implication that one or some people stand to personally gain, financially or in some other way from this proposal. Portobellosite alluded to this and someone in the hairdresser told me that he might be your son in law. What are you getting at?

Stephen, the someone in the hairdressers you referred to is my brother, as you probably know. Yes, Jean is my mother in law. I also have several other relatives who may or may not post on the site. One is abroad, two of my friends in Germany also watch the site with interest.
I think you may be gettiong a wee bit paranoid here.

I think Jeans comment was in response to MoM

I was just wondering how many "anti-brigade" people or "save the park" people actually have children of school age who could benefit from the proposed new PHS....

I respect that you are entitled to your views and to publish them here, as we all are. As Bob pointed out, and I agree, we should stick to the forum rules. Lets not get into a personal ramble about anything.

[Mate of Marya]

I would just like to make it quite clear that I meant the children would benefit from a new PHS, not the parents!

[Stephen McIntyre]

Mrs Mangle I am glad you brought this up again. I tried to get an answer from Portyman on the subject he just ignored the question.

One person at the meeting said " 10 years ago i moved from the City to my present home, at the time my Lawyer assured me that nothing would ever be built on the Golf Course, what do you ( Ewan Aitken ) suggest now ?"
.

This person could be in a very strong position for compensation if they have their lawyers assurrance in writing. If not they are deluding themselves.

Jean has brought up the possibility of building a school in Rosefield Park and perhaps houses in Brighton Park. Like many "proposals" from the anti-brigade it is poorly researched.

You will not hear me claiming that I bought the right fo prevent buildings happening in these parks, I did not. Having said that, I did know when i bought my house that it was a listed building in a georgian crescent, which is one of the finest examples in scotland. For this reason my house is located in a conservation area. I cannot claim that this gives us infinite immunity to buildings in our parks but there is absolutely no chance that housing in either park would get planning permission, none whatsoever. Its what conservation areas are for.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Stephen, the someone in the hairdressers you referred to is my brother, as you probably know......
I think you may be gettiong a wee bit paranoid here.

Calm down dear. I was merely mimicing your "overheard at the school that Porty and Stephen McIntyre were one and the same" post from the other day. Of course I know who you are, I have done for weeks. I was teasing.

I think Jeans comment was in response to MoM

I was just wondering how many "anti-brigade" people or "save the park" people actually have children of school age who could benefit from the proposed new PHS....

I respect that you are entitled to your views and to publish them here, as we all are. As Bob pointed out, and I agree, we should stick to the forum rules. Lets not get into a personal ramble about anything.

I'm afraid that's just a side step. I want to know why you have made these insinuations? It would only be personal if it was about me and I have nothing to fear in that regard. So what are you both getting at?

[Dave Connelly]

Calm down dear. I was merely mimicing your "overheard at the school that Porty and Stephen McIntyre were one and the same" post from the other day. Of course I know who you are, I have done for weeks. I was teasing.

mimic accepted and guffawed over

I'm afraid that's just a side step. I want to know why you have made these insinuations? It would only be personal if it was about me and I have nothing to fear in that regard. So what are you both getting at?

No insinuations made personally about you

[Stephen McIntyre]

Fair do's.

[Maria]

I'm sure you will appreciate that you have a vocal and intelligent opposition

Aw, shucks Dadaist! You surely can't mean that ?!



*OK...I know ,I know, I'm going off at a tangent here.....*

[Jbrock]

Hello fans...

Received a copy of the PFANS promo leaflet…

(I'd post a copy, but I don't think I can?)

A leaflet must have on it the name and address of the printer. http://www.yourrights.org.uk/your-right ... ions.shtml

I’m not sure an anonymous email address counts for this purpose? Seems only Gary ‘Leaflets & Ponies’ Gowans is willing to put his name to anything (except, of course, any posts on this forum!).

I posted the leaflet on 1 March and then again last week. I use my own name on the forum unlike others. I can't claim full credit for writing the leaflet - a group of us did. Thanks for the tip on my legal obligations.
Jackie Brock

[wangi]

A leaflet must have on it the name and address of the printer.
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/

Thanks for the tip on my legal obligations.

What's a site giving opinion and advice on the law in England and Wales got to do with anything?

[Dadaist]

I've just been passed the local SSP branch (of which I am a lapsed member) leaflet on PHS.

Although I'm hosting it and am happy to host a page for these nice people, I've got views of my own so I will thank those of you who like to bait reds to not throw any flaws within back at me - cos I didn't write it.

It's 480kb so apologies in advance for my web server if the download is slow.

http://www.radiofreeporty.org/ssp/our_choice.pdf

I've not read it, just skimmed it - but I spotted one flaw and one thing that interested me.

The obvious flaw (to me) was the claim that the new school will be built to PPP standards. Heaven forbid! I think seanie would soil his Dr Who pyjamas if that proved to be the case.

The thing that interested me was (and I'm just quoting - so it may be wrong / not applicable / whatever) :

Policy GE2 Open Space Protection, Central Edinburgh Local Plan, May 2003

Planning permission will not be given for new development which
would result in the loss of any open space which contributes to
environmental character and amenity or is of recreational or
other social value.

Anyway, whether you think it's leftist propagands that "ropes dopes" or you think it shone out of Lenin's bum - I hope you enjoy reading it.

[Maria]

I've just been passed the local SSP branch (of which I am a lapsed member) leaflet on PHS.

Although I'm hosting it and am happy to host a page for these nice people, I've got views of my own so I will thank those of you who like to bait reds to not throw any flaws within back at me - cos I didn't write it.

.

No, but they used your photo at least.

Why do they quote from the Central Edinburgh Local Plan I wonder?

[wangi]

The thing that interested me was (and I'm just quoting - so it may be wrong / not applicable / whatever) :

Policy GE2 Open Space Protection, Central Edinburgh Local Plan, May 2003

Planning permission will not be given for new development which
would result in the loss of any open space which contributes to
environmental character and amenity or is of recreational or
other social value.

Somebody (PortyMan) came out with this earlier in the thread. However a slight problem is that Portobello Isn't in the Central Edinburgh local plan area, so it's no relevance what it says about anything. The relevant one is the North East one, and if you want to see what it has to say on the matter then you'll need to get down the library, 'cause it's not online.

EDIT: correct link

[Dadaist]

Yeah - I think they have nicked 2 of my photos. They must know my views on copyright law.

How was the download speed anyway?

[Maria]

How was the download speed anyway?

It was pretty good for me thanks

[Dadaist]

How was the download speed anyway?

It was pretty good for me thanks

Good. I'm never quite sure how it is for larger files.

Once a definitive list of mistakes has been compiled, I will mail the nice people back so they can do a version 2.

[PortyMan]

Just to say...

Thanks for your kind words to Jean, Dadaist. Good advice and very well put.

To Jean, what he said and more. The ruder they are the weaker their arguments (will they ever realise that ). Remember, there are a lot more people viewing this 'debate' than posting on it! They all have their own views...

I'll try and respond to 'avoided' questions when I get a chance, sadly I have a life outside of Porty.org and have to get on with it.

In the meantime, be happy in your homes!!

[Alison Connelly]

..

[Stephen McIntyre]

A leaflet must have on it the name and address of the printer.
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/

Thanks for the tip on my legal obligations.

What's a site giving opinion and advice on the law in England and Wales got to do with anything?

The guy gets nothing right. Portyman thinks that I have a problem with him distributing leaflets. I don't, he is perfectly entitled to do so and I admire him for sticking his head above the parapet. Where i do take issue is when the leaflets contain false claims that mislead people of this community, some of them are his neighbours. It devalues his arguments and whilst it may have achieved a "result" in the short-term it is not going to work in the long-term, people will see it for what it is. An attempt to decieve, which worked.

[Stephen McIntyre]

No doubt such a policy will be developed in time, but by then it may be too late for the environmental character, amenity, recreational or social value of Portobello's open spaces, as there won't be many open spaces remaining for the policy to apply!

Well if the council's proposal gets the go ahead there will be two more public open space here in Portobello. So that's a great start.

[Maria]

I've just been passed the local SSP branch (of which I am a lapsed member) leaflet on PHS.

.

Could you ask why they have chosen to ignore St John's in their pamplet Dadaist? It seems to focus entirely on PHS.

It also seems to support a call for two smaller High schools to be built rather than one and cites co-operation over 5th and 6th year timetables as a positive experience. What this 'co-operation' means is that schools within the same cluster group combine classes to deliver a particular subject. For example, Boroughmuir may not have enough pupils to justify running an Advanced Higher class in Chemistry but if they combine classes with James Gillespie's numbers would be sufficient. Of course, this means pupils being bussed between schools eating into class time before and after each chemistry class. It is something that currently happens in schools, but I would not hold it up as a plus point. Smaller schools will mean less curricular choice or more frequent disruption to learning by pupils being bussed between schools for several subjects.

[Dadaist]

Most definitely will pass that on, Marya - what I will do is collect the errors together and report on here what the final list is that I'm going to give them back, and then we can see what ther response is.

I'd much rather one of them would come on here though.

I'm sure they are interested in an ongoing dialogue and will correct all of the errors in this, the first version of their first leaflet.

Well, I hope they will - but you know what politicians are like when you give them feedback!!

[ali]

Yeah - I think they have nicked 2 of my photos. They must know my views on copyright law.

*snigger*

[Alison Connelly]

..

[Dadaist]

I thought I would start a poll now that we have sorted out the multiple identities problem.

If I've got the wording wrong, got the choices wrong, should have asked or something - I apologise in advance.

I voted "Yes" even though I am quite close to the fence.

[Stephen McIntyre]

Well if the council's proposal gets the go ahead there will be two more public open space here in Portobello. So that's a great start.

Can you clarify exactly which 2 more public open spaces you mean? Thanks

The new public golf course at Brunstane and the new public park at the existing high school site.

[Alison Connelly]

..

[Maria]

the new public park at the existing site will be 20% of that space.

I didn't know about this Alison and Stephen. You mean that there will be parkland created on the exisiting site as well as parkland created on 1/3 of the golf course if this proposal goes ahead?

[Stephen McIntyre]

Portobello Park is not in Portobello. Neither is Portobello High School. neither is Park Avenue.

[Stephen McIntyre]

the new public park at the existing site will be 20% of that space.

I didn't know about this Alison and Stephen. You mean that there will be parkland created on the exisiting site as well as parkland created on 1/3 of the golf course if this proposal goes ahead?

Yes, its in the proposal.

[Epykat]

the new public park at the existing site will be 20% of that space.

I didn't know about this Alison and Stephen. You mean that there will be parkland created on the exisiting site as well as parkland created on 1/3 of the golf course if this proposal goes ahead?

Yes, its in the proposal.

I don't remember it being described as a 'new public park' , I think they said '20% green space". Not the same thing. It might be 20% but it most likely won't be all in the same place. More likely to be the grass verges surrounding the car park.

[Dadaist]

I didn't know about this Alison and Stephen. You mean that there will be parkland created on the exisiting site as well as parkland created on 1/3 of the golf course if this proposal goes ahead?

Yes, its in the proposal.

I don't remember it being described as a 'new public park' , I think they said '20% green space". Not the same thing. It might be 20% but it most likely won't be all in the same place. More likely to be the grass verges surrounding the car park.

Look at it this way - the dogs won't mind what they widdle up. Surviving tree here, wee bit grass there - it's all good if you're a pooch and you're desperate.

[Stephen McIntyre]

I don't remember it being described as a 'new public park' , I think they said '20% green space".

I thought it said Park and made the assumption that the public would have access to it. It will be 1.6 acres which is about the same size as a football pitch, I think. And the point being it is an increase on what is currently there at the moment. Which is what i was trying to convey to Alison.

Alison said "if there's any left" or something of that ilk. I said there would be an increase, you say it wiill only be a derisory increase. At least we are moving in the right direction.

[seanie]

I'm sure they are interested in an ongoing dialogue and will correct all of the errors in this, the first version of their first leaflet.

Well they haven’t really faced the financial realities. Their denunciation of PPP I agree with. And, as I’ve already said, Councils are indeed looking at alternative funding for projects.

But they are not finding vast untapped reserves of public money.

What they’re doing is making difficult choices in a similar vein to these proposals. They’re frequently selling assets or allowing development to generate capital. Without PPP in some form, there’s precious little alternative. The capital sums involved in building new schools are huge, councils don’t have sufficient revenue to fund them directly, aren’t allowed to borrow on that scale, and central government isn’t willing to stump up the cash itself.

Telling the Council to stand up to Gordon “Scroogeâ€

[Dadaist]

Over time I have become a fan of seanie's posts but there is one distinguishing factor which I think marks them above the rest in terms of an individual style.

Sudden short sentences.

Because whilst reading a post can be tedious, and some people may skim, there's nothing better than an occasional eye stopping pause.

It makes your point clear.

Even if there's no Dr Who reference.

And that's a fact.

[seanie]

Why thank you Dadaist.

But to remain vaguely on topic I’m also worried by the SSP’s claim that three local authorities have rejected PPP. I don’t know what West Dunbartonshire currently has in place but as far as I’m aware both Argyll & Bute and Falkirk are pioneering new PPP funded school programmes.

And since the proposals for Portobello don’t involve PPP it’s difficult to see the justification for claiming that the schools would be built to the same standard as shoddy PPP schools.