New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 21:44

Richard Butt wrote:
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.

In that case, sir, I gladly and wholeheartedly apologise, in a sort of unreserved and grovelling manner.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 24 Mar 2006, 22:03

Stephen McIntyre wrote:So it seems that residents could have taken this action but it was unlikely to have achieved compliance. This applies to the residents, golfers or council. So it is not fair that the residents and golfers groan at the council. They were equally placed to take pointless action.The law changed and the council are not responsible for that change.

Get real Stephen! As if anybody living in Park Avenue or playing a round of golf would know that this 'law', 'rule', whatever, even existed! That is just a totally ridiculous statement.

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Rosefiled Park could theoretically be sold for housing but there is no chance that planning permission could be secured. At least as things stand today but as you say it would be wrong to assume things will not change.

And if it does, just you be sure not to groan at the Council.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 22:31

This is how it's being played though, Epykat - at least in the mind of Macintyre. He's saying all the things that the council wouldn't dare put in their propaganda.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 24 Mar 2006, 22:43

No, you are both misinterpreting.

I'm saying that people need to look out for themselves. In this case PAD's failed to do so, golfers failed to do so and the council did nothing. The impending change is feudal law was widely known Its a totally brilliant change. However, as with all laws there are winners and losers.

From what Mr P has researched, there is nothing but nothing any party could have done to reverse the effects of the law change.

Even the "dead nman's grave" analogy does not apply. The council were not superiors, LV were. So when the land was donated, or after it was donated, the power of what happens to that land fell into hands other than the council. You may groan all you wish but you are groaning for the wrong reason..

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 24 Mar 2006, 22:51

So from what I can gather:

The people who live in the immediate vicinity (and please remember, they don't ALL live in Park Avenue, some of them live in the Christians, Milton Road and Hope Lane) are actually the ones at fault. They stupidly bought (or were put into by the Council - my mother in law initially being one of them) houses with an open aspect and they then had the audacity to actually like where they lived. Not being bright enough or totally on the ball, they inadvertently missed the fact that it was their responsibility to find out all about feu rights and the law - which is obviously the first thing you look into when you move into a new house, or indeed, keep your eye on on at least an annual basis. And now - well....... how could they even think about being a teeny weeny wee bit annoyed that two schools and a housing estate are about to be built on their doorstep? Really, the nerve of some people. And obviously they don't give a toss about the environment or the local kids or education or the impact on the community as a whole or the traffic problems - they are totally, utterly and absolutely completely selfish. They all hate kids. They want them in crumbling tower blocks so that they can spend their copious amounts of free time walking to the golfie for a quick round on a rubbishy course. The Council on the other hand are squeaky clean, thinking only about the children of the community and nothing about any profit that might just happen to come their way. The thought of building houses on the golf course just came as a flash of inspiration one day - they had never thought of it before. And I won't apologise for my rant. I'm sick of the 'residents' and 'golfers' being portrayed as the baddies and the children of this community being held up as hostages in a guilt trip.

<I thought you were out for a curry?>

edit: just asking Stephen why he was on here when he should be eating a Korma?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 23:17

You are right on the money, Epykat.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 24 Mar 2006, 23:23

Dadaist wrote:You are right on the money, Epykat.

And you are a total fence sitter

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 23:27

Stephen McIntyre wrote:No, you are both misinterpreting.

I'm saying that people need to look out for themselves. In this case PAD's failed to do so, golfers failed to do so and the council did nothing. The impending change is feudal law was widely known Its a totally brilliant change. However, as with all laws there are winners and losers.

From what Mr P has researched, there is nothing but nothing any party could have done to reverse the effects of the law change.

Even the "dead nman's grave" analogy does not apply. The council were not superiors, LV were. So when the land was donated, or after it was donated, the power of what happens to that land fell into hands other than the council. You may groan all you wish but you are groaning for the wrong reason..

Stephen - a couple of days ago you briefly had as your signature a quote targeting, and taunting, dccairns.

Don't tell me that I am misinterpreting anything - you have poured scorn and spite on the people who oppose your precious plan and this thread is just another example of the long campaign of yours to rubbish your opposition by any means necessary.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 23:36

Epykat wrote:
Dadaist wrote:You are right on the money, Epykat.
And you are a total fence sitter

Whatever. It doesn't matter what way this one goes - there will be a bunch of disappointed people regardless.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 24 Mar 2006, 23:39

Dadaist wrote:
Epykat wrote:
Dadaist wrote:You are right on the money, Epykat.
And you are a total fence sitter
Whatever. It doesn't matter what way this one goes - there will be a bunch of disappointed people regardless.

I think we all know which way this is going to go.....

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 24 Mar 2006, 23:51

Epykat wrote:
Dadaist wrote:
Epykat wrote: And you are a total fence sitter
Whatever. It doesn't matter what way this one goes - there will be a bunch of disappointed people regardless.
I think we all know which way this is going to go.....

Yeah, but PPANTS don't want that view doing the rounds. And if they lose then the antis will be compared to the Grinch.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:01

The so called 'anti's' (who actually aren't anti school at all, just anti housing scheme) will be rounded up, made to wear yellow, 'anti school' badges and shot at dawn outside the Town Hall

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:10

Epykat wrote:The so called 'anti's' (who actually aren't anti school at all, just anti housing scheme) will be rounded up, made to wear yellow, 'anti school' badges and shot at dawn outside the Town Hall

"Pro-golf" then?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:14

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dadaist wrote:[Have I missed (or has there been) discussion about the sewage pipes underneath the park / golf course?
This was mentioned at the PHS meeting. The council are aware of the issue. Although someone at the PFANS meeting took great delight pointing out that the counciillors had been unaware of the issue at the Gowans meeting

The exact words of Ian Perry were that "this could be reconfigured". They certainly looked like they were totally unaware of this issue, but maybe that was just my interpretetation as a hijacker.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:20

Dadaist wrote:
Epykat wrote:The so called 'anti's' (who actually aren't anti school at all, just anti housing scheme) will be rounded up, made to wear yellow, 'anti school' badges and shot at dawn outside the Town Hall
"Pro-golf" then?

To be clear - once and for all - I am: PRO school, NOT BOTHERED about golf, and ANTI- housing scheme

Sorry Stephen and Seanie, I know I'm being totally unrealistic, unreasonable and completely selfish, anti children and on another planet.

<edit to point out the weaknesses in my personality>

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:25

I would like to be pro-plan :

I'm just finding it all a bit hard to swallow.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:29

And it would also have repercussions at a later date. It would come back to haunt you, and you'd wish you'd never gone there

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:33

Epykat wrote:The so called 'anti's' (who actually aren't anti school at all, just anti housing scheme) will be rounded up, made to wear yellow, 'anti school' badges and shot at dawn outside the Town Hall

A reference to the holocaust.

How tasteful.

And how restrained.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:35

seanie wrote:
Epykat wrote:The so called 'anti's' (who actually aren't anti school at all, just anti housing scheme) will be rounded up, made to wear yellow, 'anti school' badges and shot at dawn outside the Town Hall
A reference to the holocaust.

How tasteful.

And how restrained.

And how topical

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:41

In what way?

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:44

In the way that the residents of Park Avenue and the golfers, et al are being persecuted for daring to oppose these proposals and being made out to be the scum of the earth, anti school, anti children, anti community becuse they are trying to defend their position.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:48

Alison Connelly wrote:Hello Portobello.
Edinburgh here.
We've noticed you built some houses on that big bit of space.
What a fantastic idea.
I think we'll come along and build on the remainder
After all, Portobello IS part of Edinburgh.
You don't mind do you?
You see we need some new road bumps and greenways
And we did make a (small) contribution to your school

But that won't be necessary will it Alison?

Because you "have looked at the City of Edinburgh accounts for last year" and so can enligten us on how the schools can be funded.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:51

And you think references to the holocaust are appropriate as a debating tool?

Mmmmmm....

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 25 Mar 2006, 00:53

seanie wrote:And you think references to the holocaust are appropriate as a debating tool?

Mmmmmm....

Sorry, obviously I am a totally immoral person. I take your point.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 25 Mar 2006, 01:03

I never suggested that. However you have chosen an anaolgy that associates defenders of the golf-course to victims of the holocaust. By extension those in favour of the proposals would be quasi-nazis.

That seems to me an absurd and inflammatory suggestion. As well as hugely disrespectful to those victims of such a horrific crime aginst humanity.

I speak for myself, but your introduction to this debate of holcaust imagery I find personally disgusting.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 25 Mar 2006, 01:12

seanie wrote:II speak for myself, but your introduction to this debate of holcaust imagery I find personally disgusting.

And I find the bullying of people who are doing nothing more than giving their opinion on a proposal which personally affects them is disgusting.
The residents of the properties surrounding the golf course (of which I am NOT one) are not at fault and therefore, somebody accusing them of being to blame and implying that if this proposal does not go through it is somehow their fault entirely, does not sit easily with me. I am sorry that you are upset by my imagery but, as far as I am concerned, I feel that, should this proposal disintegrate, those of us who are against it in the first place will be held responsible by people like PFANS, Stephen and you.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 25 Mar 2006, 01:22

Bullying?

People express their opinions. Some express them more robustly then others. And some are more sensitive than others.

But there is aboslutely no need to invoke the holocaust.

To use the imagery of the holcaust to further a comparatively minor argument is ridiculous. And an insult to those who endured the holocaust.

I think we should be able to argue out the issue at hand without such thoughtless comparisons.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 25 Mar 2006, 01:31

seanie wrote:Bullying?

People express their opinions. Some express them more robustly then others. And some are more sensitive than others.

But there is aboslutely no need to invoke the holocaust.

To use the imagery of the holcaust to further a comparatively minor argument is ridiculous. And an insult to those who endured the holocaust.

I think we should be able to argue out the issue at hand without such thoughtless comparisons.

Okay, I apologise. I know all about the holocaust. I work in the History Department and it was perhaps slightly over the top. However, I strongly feel that if, as in your scenario, the Council shelf these plans, the residents of the surrounding areas and those who are against these proposals, will be held responsible by the 'pros'. I am totally against this concept of 'pros' and 'antis'. I personally think that some of us are 'pro' a new school and 'anti' a housing scheme and if the proposals are shelved then so be it. We cannot "argue out the issue at hand". It's all or nothing apparently.

seanie · Post by **seanie** » 25 Mar 2006, 01:53

I personally think that some of us are 'pro' a new school and 'anti' a housing scheme and if the proposals are shelved then so be it.

But then some of you are not 'pro' a new school at all.

Not in any realistic sense.

If you are only 'pro' a new school without housing development then your 'pro' a school that won't be built. It's meaningless.

I'll listen to alternaitves. Come up with a killer solution and I'll be for it. So far everything I've heard has been mostly transparent idiocy or at best clasping at straws.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 25 Mar 2006, 09:50

seanie wrote:transparent idiocy or at best clasping at straws

People who oppose this plan shouldn't be forced into coming up with an alternative - it is sufficient for them, as individual council tax payers, residents of Portobello, golfers and dog walkers to simply say "no" if asked whether they approve of this or that plan.

It is the people who control the drawing board who should have to go back to it.

Even if this is the final solution.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 25 Mar 2006, 11:39

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 25 Mar 2006, 11:45

Dadaist wrote:
Stephen - a couple of days ago you briefly had as your signature a quote targeting, and taunting, dccairns.

.

You may think it was taunting, that's your interpretation. It was targeting, targeting is what happens when you quote someone. I took a direct quote, I quoted the complete post without alteration. The post boggled, indeed boggles my mind.The timing of my quote related to the run up to March 22nd meeting.

I did not break any forum rules. I made no comment on the quote. All I did was repeat it. So the original post remains unedited and I get 86ed for quoting it but not commenting. How does that work?

My signature was removed by Bellybabe or Marya and Bob concurred. They confessed that there was no breach of rules but felt it was inflammatory. Which is nothing short of extraordinary when you consider the implications of the quote itself.

I have taunted Gary Gowans aka Portyman because of his mendacity and inaccurate research. This does not mean I am spiteful, I feel very passionately about this subject and I won't stand by and let people make false claims. I fullyappreciate that I may not be squeaky clean on facts but if I err, I apologise, stand corrected or edit.

The point of this thread was to get to the truth about the responsibilities and actions of the council in relation to the golf course. To establish if there were grounds for groaning? I think we achieved that, with the help of some real expertise.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 25 Mar 2006, 11:48

Posting guidelines, folks, posting guidelines - calm it down a bit please.

bellybabe · Post by **bellybabe** » 25 Mar 2006, 11:53

I've heard this suggestion a few times, and I still fail to see how redeveloping St John's on its current site can help with the overcrowding. Sure we could build a bigger school on the site, but then the kids would have even less outdoor space - how is that an improvement? The playgrounds are pretty small as it is. To have even less outdoor space would make the circumstances there worse, even if they got slightly bigger classrooms.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 25 Mar 2006, 15:03