New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Richard Butt · Post by **Richard Butt** » 24 Mar 2006, 15:43

re. Lawrence Marshall (and the Scottish Socialist Worker's Party's) 'two-school solution'.

Splitting Portobello into two catchment areas would be the most divisive of all the possible options and the least beneficial to the pupils. All parents living in cities are familiar with the agony of the so-called 'choice' over which secondary school to send their children to.

A recent Guardian report concludes: 'Anyone who has recently been through this hellish experience could never wish it on the next generation of parents. Under the banner of a "choice" that is largely illusory, parents and children are well and truly put through the wringer. The simple answer is that people would be much happier with a better local school and less "choice"' (http://education.guardian.co.uk/admissi ... 62,00.html).

Less choice is also what you get with smaller schools, as we heard on Wednesday. The smaller the number of pupils, the smaller the number of teachers, the smaller the number of teachers the smaller the number of subjects available to the pupils and the smaller the number of extra-curricula activities available too. Portobello high school currently offers its pupils an envious range of subjects, with its own playing fields it could increase its already diverse (and in some instances award winning) extra-curricula activities. Losing this diversity is too high a price to pay.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 15:44

Using the same foresight as you feel the golfers and residents should have used then - what controversial council schemes in the future should Porty locals be intervening in now to protect themselves from?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 15:49

Lawrence Marshall (and the Scottish Socialist Worker's Party's) 'two-school solution'

Hey Dick.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt as to whether you were actually engaging in a bit of McCarthyism and just correct your terminology - the SWP in Scotland only exists as a small platform or tendency within the SSP - membership of which varies greatly from one branch to the next.

The leaflet to which you refer came from the Edinburgh East branch of the SSP, not the fictional entity in your quote.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 15:50

Richard, I wholeheartedly agree. To split Portobello High School would be like ripping the heart out of the community. Personally speaking I could not think of a sadder outcome.

Well done on starting the petition. There are 44 signatures already and a lot of good comments.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 15:56

Dada, its the guys first post, give him a break and don't be heavy handed.

To many people the variouslabels of the Socailist party are a complete mystery. Its like all the different termiinologies for poos, we all know what it is but call it different names.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:00

Dadaist wrote:Watch out - now that two of you have endorsed this, it means the EN can now run a story entitled "PFANS plan to stand against local councillors as golf wars spill onto the hustings"

I am not a member of PFANS so the Evening News would have it wrong again.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:00

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Dada, its the guys first post, give him a break and don't be heavy handed.

To many people the variouslabels of the Socailist party are a complete mystery. Its like all the different termiinologies for poos, we all know what it is but call it different names.

I'm happy to have set the record straight in this instance - thanks for your feedback.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:02

Pal of Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Watch out - now that two of you have endorsed this, it means the EN can now run a story entitled "PFANS plan to stand against local councillors as golf wars spill onto the hustings"
I am not a member of PFANS so the Evening News would have it wrong again.

Yeah sure - but all they would need to see would be SM's sig and you agreeing with his plan.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:03

Dadaist wrote:Using the same foresight as you feel the golfers and residents should have used then - what controversial council schemes in the future should Porty locals be intervening in now to protect themselves from?

Can I have the same 4 year lead in time as they did?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:04

PFANS doesn't have any members. It doesn't even have a youth section.

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:05

Richard Butt wrote:re. Lawrence Marshall (and the Scottish Socialist Worker's Party's) 'two-school solution'.

Splitting Portobello into two catchment areas would be the most divisive of all the possible options and the least beneficial to the pupils. All parents living in cities are familiar with the agony of the so-called 'choice' over which secondary school to send their children to.

A recent Guardian report concludes: 'Anyone who has recently been through this hellish experience could never wish it on the next generation of parents. Under the banner of a "choice" that is largely illusory, parents and children are well and truly put through the wringer. The simple answer is that people would be much happier with a better local school and less "choice"' (http://education.guardian.co.uk/admissi ... 62,00.html).

Less choice is also what you get with smaller schools, as we heard on Wednesday. The smaller the number of pupils, the smaller the number of teachers, the smaller the number of teachers the smaller the number of subjects available to the pupils and the smaller the number of extra-curricula activities available too. Portobello high school currently offers its pupils an envious range of subjects, with its own playing fields it could increase its already diverse (and in some instances award winning) extra-curricula activities. Losing this diversity is too high a price to pay.

100% behind you on this Richard, though to be fair I think the woman who suggested this had in mind a middle school/senior school model similar to that in some parts of England. This would, of course, not involve any change in the catchment area.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:09

Stephen McIntyre wrote:PFANS doesn't have any members. It doesn't even have a youth section.

Cool. So it just has pockets of sympathisers - like a terrorist outfit?

I always thought that the campaigners who were going to make all the fuss were the golfers - which is why I speculated as to what the militant wing of the golfer/resident alliance would call itself. (I came up with "Golfers 4 Justice")

I never gave any thought to it being PFANS which came out with guns blazing.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:15

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Using the same foresight as you feel the golfers and residents should have used then - what controversial council schemes in the future should Porty locals be intervening in now to protect themselves from?
Can I have the same 4 year lead in time as they did?

Use todays date and the current state of the law in Scotland as your basis - obviously if there's anything pending which you forsee as being pertinent in 4 months or even 4 years - tell us now while there's still time.

What should a normal homeowner and user of council services be doing that they aren't already?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:31

Dadaist wrote:I never gave any thought to it being PFANS which came out with guns blazing.

I can assure you PFANS guns are not blazing. I don't know many of the sympathisers well but rarely, if ever, have I encountered such a group of fair, well-intentioned, articulate, thoughtful and caring people. If they have guns, they leave them at home. I have trouble wearing the jersey

Quite a few of us, myself included, do not have children who will benefit directly. What we do have is a sense of purpose and a belief that they are doing the right thing.

They have organised one meeting so far. It was totally inclusive. The "antis" had a petition going round, the golfers had a say, the PAD's had a say. In the debates to come, if there is a better, more balanced speech than the one Tom Ballantyne (sp) gave,I will be astonished. You can't describe us as a terrorist outfit, we are too reasoable.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:37

No, i want the same condions as they had. They did not require foresight, there was 4 years notice given prior to the key event. What key event are you thinking of?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:37

Stephen McIntyre wrote: What we do have is a sense of purpose and a belief that they are doing the right thing.

So you're saying that the road you travel down is paved with good intent?

You can't describe us as a terrorist outfit, we are too reasoable.

I didn't. Same as you didn't describe the socialist party as poo.

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:43

Porty said:

You can't describe us as a terrorist outfit, we are too reasoable. (sic)

If PFANS has no members - who is "we"?

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:44

dccairns wrote:Porty said:

You can't describe us as a terrorist outfit, we are too reasoable. (sic)

If PFANS has no members - who is "we"?

http://www.pfans.co.uk

Oi. It wasn't Porty that said that. i had to do a quick change.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:47

If PFANS has no members - who is "we"?

His local cell. They wouldn't even know if there was another PFANS cell on the next street - making it much harder for the authorities to break up.

They get their orders using the internet.

edit -> put in quote

dccairns · Post by **dccairns** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:48

Oops - you must be his brother. You seem so similar.

So you are changing tarts - interesting.

Maybe you could ask your bro to answer my question.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:54

Porty wrote:
dccairns wrote:Porty said:

You can't describe us as a terrorist outfit, we are too reasoable. (sic)

If PFANS has no members - who is "we"?
http://www.pfans.co.uk

Oi. It wasn't Porty that said that. i had to do a quick change.

Porty

I know you are keen to shrug off accusations that you are somehow out to make a buck out of all this so here's a tip -> PFANS is a .org.uk as opposed to the commercial entity .co.uk (although anyone can register anything - it's only a naming convention)

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 24 Mar 2006, 16:57

dccairns wrote:Maybe you could ask your bro to answer my question.

Its ok, I will do it. I posted the wrong link earlier, my bad.

The website tells you what we are. There are no members as such, its a fluid group of people who share a common purpose. A bit like PCATS was, I think?

You don't have to be rich, you don't have to be cool, you don't have to have kids at Porty High School.

Remember and sign the petition when you get there.

http://www.pfans.org.uk

"PFANS is a group of local residents and parents campaigning for new schools in Portobello. PFANS wants to work with the whole community and with the Council, to achieve a fair share of green space for everyone."[/quote]

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 17:03

The website tells you what we are. There are no members as such, its a fluid group of people who share a common purpose

Have the FBI heard about you yet?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 24 Mar 2006, 17:09

Dadaist wrote:What should a normal homeowner and user of council services be doing that they aren't already?

Not voting Labour in the next Council elections?

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 24 Mar 2006, 17:13

Here are Mr P/El P's replies to the PQs (Portly Questions - in-joke for all civil servants and Sandra!!

)

[quote]

1. In my experience I have never come across anyone approaching a Superior asking them to continue an enforcement, but on reflection, in theory they could have done. However there are conditions. They (LV) would have had to nominate some other land to be the â€œdominant tenementâ€

Maria · Post by **Maria** » 24 Mar 2006, 17:15

Poppy wrote:Now I'm going to register him a POLer - does he think I'm his PA or something!!

If you do make him share his Easter egg with you!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 17:19

Stephen McIntyre wrote:No, i want the same condions as they had. They did not require foresight, there was 4 years notice given prior to the key event. What key event are you thinking of?

You're almost there but not quite. There's obviously a general principle that individuals should be applying to their daily lives which would have led these people, as a matter of course, to solve this problem before it became one for them - the one you refer to is only a single instance.

Using that principle, what should a homeowner or council service user being doing that they aren't already?

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 24 Mar 2006, 17:21

Marya wrote:
Poppy wrote:Now I'm going to register him a POLer - does he think I'm his PA or something!!
If you do make him share his Easter egg with you!

If that happens it better be a dairy-free one!!! For my sake, not his, the baldy twit.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 17:21

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Dada, its the guys first post, give him a break and don't be heavy handed.

I see from a "whois" search that Dick Butt is the person who registered your sympathy group's website - I didn't know the SSP had such high profile haters!

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 17:36

Dadaist wrote:Porty
I know you are keen to shrug off accusations that you are somehow out to make a buck out of all this -> )

What do you mean?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 17:57

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dadaist wrote:Porty
I know you are keen to shrug off accusations that you are somehow out to make a buck out of all this -> )
What do you mean?

Did someone not falsely accuse you of some sort of vested interest a few pages back - portobellosite perhaps?

What I meant was - jokingly - maybe calling PFANS a business was a Freudian slip!

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 18:31

I am indebted to the Poppy's.

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Pre-Nov 28 2004 could the residents of Park Avenue or indeed the Golfers have approached LV to urge them to continue enforcement of the real burdens?

Mr Poppy wrote: 1. In my experience I have never come across anyone approaching a Superior asking them to continue an enforcement, but on reflection, in theory they could have done. However there are conditions. They (LV) would have had to nominate some other land to be the â€œdominant tenementâ€

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 19:03

Does anyone know if the Park Avenue (etc) residents are seeking their own meeting with the council or if they would like to have one?

Jbrock · Post by **Jbrock** » 24 Mar 2006, 19:12

I'm sure members of this Forum will be quick to set me right about the various laws, regulations, restrictions etc that will apply to the use of "members" or "we" in relation to PFANS. I'd appreciate any guidance. We want to be completely open so here is an explanation of how PFANS is conducting itself:

To register as a "supporter" of the aims of PFANS, we are asking people to register on pfans@hotmail.co.uk.
If people want to keep in touch about PFANS and our views on the redevelopment of the schools, we have set up a website www.pfans.org.uk. People can use this site to sign up to our petition. We also have a petition circulating in paper copy. You can contact me via the Forum or through PFANS to get a paper copy.

Richard Butt · Post by **Richard Butt** » 24 Mar 2006, 21:10

Dadaist wrote: I see from a "whois" search that Dick Butt is the person who registered your sympathy group's website - I didn't know the SSP had such high profile haters!

Just glad to get your attention Dadaist, but contrary to your accusation that I'm a SSP hater (let alone 'high profile') I voted for them last time I was in a polling booth in Porty town hall.

"I have forced myself to contradict myself in order to avoid conforming to my own taste" as your friend Duchamp famously said.