New Portobello High School- Where and how?

[Bob Jefferson]

It is not a question of the Golf Course having to justify its existence, rather it is an exercise in making the best use of available resources.

The PFANS consultation response justifies the golf course out of existence.

I'm assuming you missed this bit:

An element in this timescale would be to allow for the relocation and establishment of the new golf course at Brunstane.

[Dadaist]

It is not a question of the Golf Course having to justify its existence, rather it is an exercise in making the best use of available resources.

The PFANS consultation response justifies the golf course out of existence.

I'm assuming you missed this bit:

An element in this timescale would be to allow for the relocation and establishment of the new golf course at Brunstane.

That's an incorrect assumption. I'm talking about the suggestions in 3.4

[Dadaist]

Bob, I wouldn't for a moment assume you missed these bits - they would be the bits I was assuming you knew I was talking about :

we are aware that some have questioned whether its level of usage, and the availability of other public courses nearby justifies its replacement in the first place

closely followed by

the "greener" and environmentally just option may be for Edinburgh City Council to reduce rather than increase the number of courses and release the land for wider educational and community use

[Porty]

Relevant or not, that's the suggestion in the PFANS document.

That's not promotion to a brand new facility - in 3.4 they suggest not building a replacement golf course at all, which is a P45.

Ah, I misunderstood, I thought you were talking about what the council were offering PGC not what PFANS were suggesting. I get it now. I can't equate a PFANS suggestion with "Forcing" the closure of PGC.

All PFANS have done is play back the falling usage numbers and the fact that there is a superb council golf facility close by, Craigentinny. They are calling into question the need for a new course and as tax payers they are quite right to do so. You seem to want to discount usage as relevant to a decision on whether or not to close a council facility. I would be interested to learn what other criteria you would use for the allocation of limited resources? For example, if the council tried to close Portobello Baths would you expect the campaigners to ignore how popular and well used the place is and simply argure "but we were here first and we've been here for a 100 years"? I don't think so.

Here's a prediction; if option c is chosen all of a sudden the golfers will be a lot more amenable to moving to a new course and they will be encouraged to do so by PPAG.

[Dadaist]

Relevant or not, that's the suggestion in the PFANS document.

That's not promotion to a brand new facility - in 3.4 they suggest not building a replacement golf course at all, which is a P45.

Ah, I misunderstood, I thought you were talking about what the council were offering PGC not what PFANS were suggesting. I get it now. I can't equate a PFANS suggestion with "Forcing" the closure of PGC.

All PFANS have done is play back the falling usage numbers and the fact that there is a superb council golf facility close by, Craigentinny. They are calling into question the need for a new course and as tax payers they are quite right to do so. You seem to want to discount usage as relevant to a decision on whether or not to close a council facility. I would be interested to learn what other criteria you would use for the allocation of limited resources? For example, if the council tried to close Portobello Baths would you expect the campaigners to ignore how popular and well used the place is and simply argure "but we were here first and we've been here for a 100 years"? I don't think so.

Here's a prediction; if option c is chosen all of a sudden the golfers will be a lot more amenable to moving to a new course and they will be encouraged to do so by PPAG.

I don't mind that you don't equate the PFANS suggestion with "Forcing" closure. Suggesting it is bad enough for me.

If the council tried to close Portobello Baths then all well and good - they are in the business of opening and closing things. If a pressure group with an agenda which entailed needing the site of the baths for something else started using the usage statistics as a stick to beat them with in order to justify their own agenda then I would call that negative campaigning.

[Porty]

Whether the measure of justice is environmentl, social, economical, educational or sporting, there is no justification for a golf course at the heart of the portobello community.

[This is the kind of tyranny which has annoyed me from the start because of the way it's being applied.

Before this land was needed, nobody peeped about the golf course and it was the sort of nice thing that nobody had a real problem with. It was the sort of thing that people would have campaigned to keep - and under a different kind of threat I might have supported them..

That's it in a nutshell. Before the land was needed there was no requirement to justify the location of the GC where it is. Things have changed, needs have been identified. It is nothing new in fact its history repeating itself as far as the GC is concerned.

[Porty]

[. If a pressure group with an agenda which entailed needing the site of the baths for something else started using the usage statistics as a stick to beat them with in order to justify their own agenda then I would call that negative campaigning.

If you look back at the beginning ofthe campaign it was the Golfers/PPAG who started using usage statistics to justify the golf course. You can't blame PFANS for countering them. Particularly when the usage stats in question were not researched, in fact they were just made up. Fire with fire or in this case factual fire with fantasy fire.

[Dadaist]

You seem to want to discount usage as relevant to a decision on whether or not to close a council facility. I would be interested to learn what other criteria you would use for the allocation of limited resources?

I thought I'd covered this but am aware that it likes to have its questions answered.

I don't want to discount anything. I think I've already tried to explain my thinking on this in that if this were a blank bit of land that they were making the decision on what to put there - fine. This was what I said :

Forcing something which hadn't done anything wrong other than exist to suddenly justify its own existence or face extinction is, in my opinion, wrong when the forced justification is pre-judged to suit an existing agenda

This is just my opinion. I'm not sure if it directly answers your "what criteria" question so please let me know, as I know it doesn't like unanswered questions and I don't want "the treatment", whether by repeated questioning or you starting to use your signature again!

[Dadaist]

[. If a pressure group with an agenda which entailed needing the site of the baths for something else started using the usage statistics as a stick to beat them with in order to justify their own agenda then I would call that negative campaigning.

If you look back at the beginning ofthe campaign it was the Golfers/PPAG who started using usage statistics to justify the golf course. You can't blame PFANS for countering them. Particularly when the usage stats in question were not researched, in fact they were just made up. Fire with fire or in this case factual fire with fantasy fire.

Yes, but two wrongs don't necessarily make a right. I see the point you and seanie have made in that these statistics and facts are being used to counter outright rubbish from PPAG, but my own opinion is that the consultation doc reads like an attack on the golfers and their course.

[Porty]

Yes, but two wrongs don't necessarily make a right. I see the point you and seanie have made in that these statistics and facts are being used to counter outright rubbish from PPAG, but my own opinion is that the consultation doc reads like an attack on the golfers and their course.

You are falling into the PPAG "attack" language. Its a challenge not an attack, indeed in the case of the PFANS doc its just a statement of fact.

Yes, but two wrongs don't necessarily make a right.

Agreed but one right is very effective when righting a wrong.

(BTW I'm refering to Tess as "it" as I don't know if its a he/she?)

[Dadaist]

Yes, but two wrongs don't necessarily make a right. I see the point you and seanie have made in that these statistics and facts are being used to counter outright rubbish from PPAG, but my own opinion is that the consultation doc reads like an attack on the golfers and their course.

You are falling into the PPAG "attack" language. Its a challenge not an attack, indeed in the case of the PFANS doc its just a statement of fact.

Yes, but two wrongs don't necessarily make a right.

Agreed but one right is very effective when righting a wrong.

A B-52 strike is very effective when you want to kill one person.

You asked me to give you an opinion on the consultation doc and what I thought. I've done my best to give you my opinion.

Even if the consultation doc is a list of facts, it's a list of specially selected facts designed to counter your enemy's propaganda.

To me it reads like an attack. Warfare carries with it the risk of innocent casualties. The golf course, its users and their sport have gone from being civilians to being collateral damage and even if you say they weren't the target, the consultation doc puts them in your arc of fire.

[Porty]

I'm not sure if it directly answers your "what criteria" question so please let me know, as I know it doesn't like unanswered questions and I don't want "the treatment", whether by repeated questioning or you starting to use your signature again!

Perhaps I should re-phrase the question. Councils have limited resources to provide, schools, community centres, sports and leisure facilities and so on.

Question 1: When reviewing provision of facilities or amenities do you agree that demand or usage of existing resources should be factored in to the decision making process?

To give an extreme example (made up figures). In 1977 Portobello Open Air attracted 10,000 bathers during the season. By 1980 this had dropped to 2000. It was built in 1935. The council have a decision to make regarding allocation of resources.

Question 2: If the Pool had been built in 1895 should they keep it open based on that criteria alone?

[Porty]

You asked me to give you an opinion on the consultation doc and what I thought. I've done my best to give you my opinion.
.

I appreciate your opinion and that you have done your best.

[Dadaist]

In my opinion this is a wider issue. There's a world of difference between coming up with usage facts to back an agenda, and a review of facilities and amenities. This thread is about the new PHS and, up til now, I'd been trying to tell you my opinion on the PFANS consultation response. The issue you're starting to branch into is much larger.

If you want to start a new thread about the procedure the council go through when reviewing provision and amenities - great. I'd love to know exactly when and how they do it - especially since they seem to have goofed in terms of providing for PHS to the extent that they are having to cannibalise and flog off other amenities.

[Porty]

Yes, but two wrongs don't necessarily make a right. I see the point you and seanie have made in that these statistics and facts are being used to counter outright rubbish from PPAG, but my own opinion is that the consultation doc reads like an attack on the golfers and their course.

You are falling into the PPAG "attack" language. Its a challenge not an attack, indeed in the case of the PFANS doc its just a statement of fact.

Yes, but two wrongs don't necessarily make a right.

Agreed but one right is very effective when righting a wrong.

A B-52 strike is very effective when you want to kill one person.

A B-52 strike analogy is very ineffective in countering my one right v wrong observation.

[Porty]

In my opinion this is a wider issue. There's a world of difference between coming up with usage facts to back an agenda, and a review of facilities and amenities. This thread is about the new PHS and, up til now, I'd been trying to tell you my opinion on the PFANS consultation response. The issue you're starting to branch into is much larger.

If you want to start a new thread about the procedure the council go through when reviewing provision and amenities - great. I'd love to know exactly when and how they do it.

No new thread required but an answer to the questions would be appreciated.

[Dadaist]

I quite liked it. I thought it fitted in with there being innocent bystanders, and PFANS-CEC being at war with PPAG.

[Pal of Porty]

Even if the consultation doc is a list of facts, it's a list of specially selected facts designed to counter your enemy's propaganda.

Nice to see the acknowledgement that one side is using facts and the other propaganda.

[Dadaist]

In my opinion this is a wider issue. There's a world of difference between coming up with usage facts to back an agenda, and a review of facilities and amenities. This thread is about the new PHS and, up til now, I'd been trying to tell you my opinion on the PFANS consultation response. The issue you're starting to branch into is much larger.

If you want to start a new thread about the procedure the council go through when reviewing provision and amenities - great. I'd love to know exactly when and how they do it.

No new thread required but an answer to the questions would be appreciated.

No new thread required in your opinion, not mine. I'd really like to know what the correct procedure is in terms of reviewing facilities and amenities as it certainly shouldn't be the way we've seen the golf course treated.

Rather than saying "When reviewing provision of facilities and amenities", I'd like to know when facility and amenity provision is reviewed.

[Dadaist]

Even if the consultation doc is a list of facts, it's a list of specially selected facts designed to counter your enemy's propaganda.

Nice to see the acknowledgement that one side is using facts and the other propaganda.

Absolutely. PFANS selected facts come off just as insidious though because, in the case of the consultation doc as it relates to the golf course, they seemed to me to be very negative.

[Porty]

seemed to me to be very negative.

I thought ad hominem was beneath you. Rather than consider negative, positive or neutral do you accept that the PFANS srgument is factual?

Re-the "when reviewed" question:

I imagine annual budgeting is a catalyst for review of provisoning and also when needs come to the fore, as in the case of PHS. Councils cannot just consider economic or commercial pressure when taking decisions on facilities but surely you agree that such considerations are major ?

[Dadaist]

seemed to me to be very negative.

I thought ad hominem was beneath you. Rather than consider negative, positive or neutral do you accept that the PFANS srgument is factual?

Re-the "when reviewed" question:

I imagine annual budgeting is a catalyst for review of provisoning and also when needs come to the fore, as in the case of PHS. Councils cannot just consider economic or commercial pressure when taking decisions on facilities but surely you agree that such considerations are major ?

Ad hominem means against a/the person. I was talking about facts, not people. If I've upset the author(s) of the doc by pointing out that they have selected a whole bunch of negative facts then I apologise.

I had an open mind when I read the doc. Once I had finished with 3.4 and "the green question" I had a negative taste in my mouth.

I've never said they weren't facts, but they are facts which seem to me to have been carefully and specially selected. The PFANS consultation doc is factual and negative at the same time due to the facts it chooses and the way they are presented.

Respectfully, I think that facilities review should be its own topic. There must be a structure for the way they do it and I think we'd all be better informed if we knew what it was. I don't want to duck any of your questions because I'm scared of getting "the treatment" - but when seanie says that funding is the elephant in the room, the way the council is run is the whacking great mammoth in the room. It deserves its own forum let alone its own thread!!

[Porty]

Ad hominem means against a/the person. I was talking about facts, not people. If I've upset the author(s) of the doc by pointing out that they have selected a whole bunch of negative facts then I apologise.

I wouldn't worry about upsetting them with that allegation too much I think they will still be smarting from this one:

Whoever came up with the phrase "environmental justice" is either a cynic or an idiot.

Ad hominem ad infinitum.

[Dadaist]

Ad hominem means against a/the person. I was talking about facts, not people. If I've upset the author(s) of the doc by pointing out that they have selected a whole bunch of negative facts then I apologise.

I wouldn't worry about upsetting them with that allegation too much I think they will still be smarting from this one:

Whoever came up with the phrase "environmental justice" is either a cynic or an idiot.

Ad hominem ad infinitum.

My apologies. I didn't even know there was an Environmental Justice movement back when I wrote that - I thought it was someone on their high horse a la McCrow with his "this is community power" bit back when the John Street massive had won.

I've since looked it up and (sort of) understand that it covers other stuff apart from ecology - I took it at face value in the context of "the environment" which was wrong.

It doesn't make the PFANS doc anything like impartial though despite you and PoPs frenetic efforts to state the fact, the whole fact and nothing but the fact - it's coming off like a leaflet from the Vegan Liberation Front called "Some Facts About Meat".

[Porty]

Respectfully, I think that facilities review should be its own topic. There must be a structure for the way they do it and I think we'd all be better informed if we knew what it was.!!

Makes sense.

I contend that whatever structure exists, there are one-off issues that can spark the desire, need or cause to review, as is the case here with PHS. When it was fisrt mooted that the golf course could be moved, the defenders immediately leapt to usage statistics, quite quickly they moved away from that strategy. This was entirely due to the fact that when tha actual usage figures were examined they weakened their case. In truth that's all that they had to offer. The only other hope was longevity and legal entitlement. The first is a weak argument the latter is untrue.

I don't want to duck any of your questions because I'm scared of getting "the treatment" -

Just this once I will let you avoid the questiions.

[Porty]

My apologies

Sir, those two words are the hardest to say here on POL. I respect you for the unequivocal way you used them.

[Pal of Porty]

It doesn't make the PFANS doc anything like impartial though despite you and PoPs frenetic efforts to state the fact, the whole fact and nothing but the fact - it's coming off like a leaflet from the Vegan Liberation Front called "Some Facts About Meat".

Here is another fact - I have made 3 posts on this thread in the last 5 pages.
Here is some propaganda - 'PoP's frenetic efforts'

[Dadaist]

Respectfully, I think that facilities review should be its own topic. There must be a structure for the way they do it and I think we'd all be better informed if we knew what it was.!!

Makes sense.

I contend that whatever structure exists, there are one-off issues that can spark the desire, need or cause to review, as is the case here with PHS. When it was fisrt mooted that the golf course could be moved, the defenders immediately leapt to usage statistics, quite quickly they moved away from that strategy. This was entirely due to the fact that when tha actual usage figures were examined they weakened their case. In truth that's all that they had to offer. The only other hope was longevity and legal entitlement. The first is a weak argument the latter is untrue.

I don't want to duck any of your questions because I'm scared of getting "the treatment" -

Just this once I will let you avoid the questiions.

No. If you've got questions about the procedure the council goes through when it reviews its facilities and resources then lets do it properly, not as an adjunct or footnote to this discussion. All we got at the "hijack" meeting was "we are where we are" and that's just not good enough.

That way nobody gets to duck anyones questions - although I fear your questions about whether golf courses are overfunded and undersubscribed may be drowned in the ocean of questions about whether high schools are underfunded and oversubscribed.

[Porty]

No. If you've got questions about the procedure the council goes through when it reviews its facilities and resources then lets do it properly, not as an adjunct or footnote to this discussion. All we got at the "hijack" meeting was "we are where we are" and that's just not good enough.
.

Excue me, my questions were not about the review procedure, I have questions about the decision making criteria namely usage, demand and longevity.

[Dadaist]

No. If you've got questions about the procedure the council goes through when it reviews its facilities and resources then lets do it properly, not as an adjunct or footnote to this discussion. All we got at the "hijack" meeting was "we are where we are" and that's just not good enough.
.

Excue me, my questions were not about the review procedure, I have questions about the decision making criteria namely usage, demand and longevity.

Then start a thread which can effectively deal with all of these questions so that we can learn how things work. I for one would love to know how my council tax dollars are spent and how they decide on opening new things and closing old things etc.

[Porty]

Then start a thread which can effectively deal with all of these questions so that we can learn how things work. I for one would love to know how my council tax dollars are spent and how they decide on opening new things and closing old things etc.

That's too wide a brief. I was asking you the questions not the council but as I say I'm letting you off.

[Dadaist]

Then start a thread which can effectively deal with all of these questions so that we can learn how things work. I for one would love to know how my council tax dollars are spent and how they decide on opening new things and closing old things etc.

That's too wide a brief. I was asking you the questions not the council but as I say I'm letting you off.

You can ask me anything you like and if I don't have a clue what the answer is I'll tell you, and if I feel the questions don't fit in this thread but are important and should therefore be part of a different discussion, one where everyone gets to ask everyone questions about a bunch of stuff - great. Lets do it. I don't want to duck anything or be let off anything.

[Porty]

I don't want to duck anything or be let off anything.

Ok then, answer the questions to the best of your ability.

[Dadaist]

I don't want to duck anything or be let off anything.

Ok then, answer the questions to the best of your ability.

Put them in the correct setting. Don't just use them to suit your argument and agenda. Keep this thread on topic and create a discussion based on the (very important) topics you raise with them.

[Porty]

I don't want to duck anything or be let off anything.

Ok then, answer the questions to the best of your ability.

Put them in the correct setting. Don't just use them to suit your argument and agenda. Keep this thread on topic and create a discussion based on the (very important) topics you raise with them.

I don't quite understand how you can say that this is not in the correct setting or off-topic.

All PFANS have done is play back the falling usage numbers and the fact that there is a superb council golf facility close by, Craigentinny. They are calling into question the need for a new course and as tax payers they are quite right to do so. You seem to want to discount usage as relevant to a decision on whether or not to close a council facility. I would be interested to learn what other criteria you would use for the allocation of limited resources? .