New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[Epykat]

.I dont believe anyone is suggesting that you didnt know you were doing your bit to delay the school. you're far from daft.

Admit it Epy, you knew what you were doing. As you chewed over every sweet morsel , savouring the delicate flavours of sugar and fat combined, you were thinking, that's the school delayed by another 10 seconds. Munch. and another. Munch. And another. You knew what you were doing alright. Greedy mare. More tea?

If I'd only known we had such power I'd have had another 5 vodkas at the pop quiz as well!

[seanie]

Stopped them building on the park though, didn't it? That's a strong opinion going on there. Maybe Wick Council didn't want the expense and delay that a legal challenge might bring. Maybe not. I'm surprised no-one has looked at this case though. I'll email PPAG, seems the decent thing to do.

Are you suggesting that PPAG's legal team are so incompetent that they're unaware of the Bignold Park situation?

Even though the opinion obtained by Highland Council has been in the public domain for well over a year?

[Scoop]

Stopped them building on the park though, didn't it? That's a strong opinion going on there. Maybe Wick Council didn't want the expense and delay that a legal challenge might bring. Maybe not. I'm surprised no-one has looked at this case though. I'll email PPAG, seems the decent thing to do.

Are you suggesting that PPAG's legal team are so incompetent that they're unaware of the Bignold Park situation?

Even though the opinion obtained by Highland Council has been in the public domain for well over a year?

No, and there you go again, making out that I have suggested something which I clearly did not. But now that I know what the pont of law is here that is being challenged, I'd have to say PPAG are right to challenge the Council.

[seanie]

What point of law?

That inalienable Common Good land can't be appropriated?

[Makaveli]

Stupid/Ill informed - only they can decide that. I know what I think.

Anyone who is knowingly part of the quest to delay the new school should be made to explain their actions to the school kids of Portobello.

[Epykat]

Anyone who is knowingly part of the quest to delay the new school should be made to explain their actions to the school kids of Portobello.

I absolutely agree. They should be telling the school kids of Portobello that, even though you're the Council, you need to follow the rules. You need to be absolutely certain that what you're doing is within the law or there is a chance that you may have to go to Court to sort things out which can cause a delay.

[seanie]

PPAG could've brought an action after the December '08 decision.

Why the delay?

[Epykat]

PPAG could've brought an action after the December '08 decision.

Why the delay?

Why the same question, over and over and over? Maybe there's a delay because you keep asking the wrong people?

[Porty]

But now that I know what the pont of law is here that is being challenged, I'd have to say PPAG are right to challenge the Council.

PPAG challenged the council, on whether the matter needed to be settled in court, from early 2006 to late 2008. The council took the challenge seriously, showed respect for PPAG's concern, spent a substantial sum of money obtaining legal advice from both Junior and Senior counsel and followed the advice: there was no need to go to court. Had the advice bee different they may have gone to court to seek permission- they certainly would not have ignored it.

In December 2008 the Council told PPAG, in no uncertain terms, they would not be going to Court. PPAG responded, saying that THEY would take the matter to court.

In response to the PPAG challenge The council put their/our money where their mouth was, , that was 2008. Instead of taking the matter to court, as they promised, PPAG began a "let's ask again" campaign. Writing to the council requesting they commence a joint court action. When the council stayed true to their word, saying no, PPAG perverted the discourse, blaming the council for the delay and they continue to do so.

The council have not delayed court action, after taking advice, they promised not to take it to court. In contrast; PPAG promised legal action and took 3 years to initiate it.

One party, never intended to go to court, so no delay. The other party vowed they would- so why the delay?

(apologies for asking again, you may be the "wrong people" but you are all we have. perhaps it would suffice to say something along the lines of "We are not involved in the day to day decision making at PPAG, we did our bit, gave a little bit of cash, which contributed to the delayed School. That's all we know)

[Epykat]

"We are not involved in the day to day decision making at PPAG, we did our bit, gave a little bit of cash, which contributed to the delayed School. That's all we know)

There. That make you feel better?

[Porty]

I'm feeling fine, regardless. The words are mine not yours!

Perhaps we are getting somewhere. I accept that you do not know why PPAG delayed.

Do you accept that they are solely responsible for the delay?

[seanie]

Letters: Park protest group should be made to pay if they lose

[Betty Windsor]

Would that be by way of a punishment for daring to hold the council to account? You seem to forget that this case is of interest outwith our little area. It will create a very worrying precedent if City of Edinburgh get away with this. There are many people outwith the PPAG who are very keen to make sure this does not happen. This dispute is about the land. You, along with the council have tried to make it about the school. It's now in the hands of the courts and I for one am very happy about that, and look forward to seeing justice done.

[seanie]

It's not about them "daring to hold the council to account", it's about the unnecessary delay and the additional expense that's been involved. PPAG could've challenged the Council's decision in December '08 but waited over 2 and a half years. They even waited for 3-4 months after the planning application was granted, until the project was out to tender, at which point their challenge would inevitably cause delay.

They left their action till the very last minute.

[Epykat]

I'm feeling fine, regardless. The words are mine not yours!

Perhaps we are getting somewhere. I accept that you do not know why PPAG delayed.

Do you accept that they are solely responsible for the delay?

Well, no point in putting anything in my own words. I would just have made them up.

I don't even know why you're wasting time asking me if I accept that the PPAG are solely responsible for the delay. Obviously I don't. The Council are responsible for the delay. If they hadn't done what they do best, ie blundering on doing whatever they want and hoping they get away with it, then there wouldn't be a delay. But then, you don't REALLY want to know what I think because it's all irrelevant to you anyway seeing as how you know everything and I know nothing.

[Betty Windsor]

Scoop and Sean - you need to get Seashell to help out. Lets face it - you're never going to agree and you're struggling to understand each other's positions - call in the Mediator.

PB - I think you must be misinformed. Seashell can't be the person you think she is, her children attend PHS.

[Porty]

Would that be by way of a punishment for daring to hold the council to account? You seem to forget that this case is of interest outwith our little area. It will create a very worrying precedent if City of Edinburgh get away with this. There are many people outwith the PPAG who are very keen to make sure this does not happen. This dispute is about the land. You, along with the council have tried to make it about the school. It's now in the hands of the courts and I for one am very happy about that, and look forward to seeing justice done.

Me too - I'm expecting Justice to agree with the legal advice the Council obtained in 2008, if not, then it would be fair to say they blundered and should pick up the cost.

If PPAG lose they should pick up the costs, which is the norm in civil cases, agreed? Nothing to do with punishment, lots to do with taking responsibility for their actions and ill founded beliefs.

As for the "many people outwith PPAG"- (Who along with the working class & poor people of Magdalene and the Christians, are yet another group you purport to speak on behalf of.) Should PPAG lose then Councils all over Scotland will have even more case law to support self-appropriation of their Common Good assets.

Will you be available for comment?

Anyhoo, why are you bothered, you're going to win, yeah?

[Betty Windsor]

I think it shows how out of touch you really are with the people in the Christians and Magdalene these days if you think people are happy with the loss of their land. If you think it's a good thing that councils can do this without having to go through the courts then I respect your opinion but I strongly disagree with it. I think I'm still allowed to do that in this country without fear of intimidation and ridicule. Not always the case on this forum in my experience. It's in the hands of the courts now and if it suits your purposes to continue to undermine the efforts of PPAG and Diana Cairns in particular, it really says a lot more about you than it does about them. I now have to trust in the process of the law.

[Porty]

I now have to trust in the process of the law.

Same boat.

You're going to win, yeah?

[Porty]

BTW- I've never claimed to be in touch with what the people of Magdalene and the Christians think- that was you.

[seashell]

Scoop and Sean - you need to get Seashell to help out. Lets face it - you're never going to agree and you're struggling to understand each other's positions - call in the Mediator.

PB - I think you must be misinformed. Seashell can't be the person you think she is, her children attend PHS.

To return to the pantomime theme: oh no they don't.
I do not know who you think I am, Betty, but let me assure you that you are 100% wrong in that statement.

Still, I know who I am. I think...

[Porty]

I do not know who you think I am, Betty, but let me assure you that you are 100% wrong in that statement.

Betty!- wrong you say?

[seashell]

So wrong it is unbelievable.
The only correct piece of information in that preposterous post was that Betty got my sex correct.

For the avoidance of doubt: I do not like people making bald, and utterly incorrect statements about me under the guise of purveying *factual* information when they are proceeeding from a point of total ignorance. I hope that Betty has the courtesy to apologise for attempting to 'call me out', even if the results have rather backfired.

[Bob Jefferson]

Oh dear. Another case of mistaken identity. Perhaps I'm Seashell? What do you reckon Betty?

[rmolehusband]

Oh dear. Another case of mistaken identity. Perhaps I'm Seashell? What do you reckon Betty?

No, I'm Seashell. (when I'm not being Bob of course)
I suspect betty suffers from a online form of Prosopagnosia?

[seashell]

I think we've all been watching a certain film with Kirk Douglas over the holidays!!
Never mind guys, I'm feeling the love here. Well, from some of you.

[Puerto bella]

Does that qualify as 'sticky' wangi? Always wondered what that was until now.

[Scoop]

It's not about them "daring to hold the council to account", it's about the unnecessary delay and the additional expense that's been involved. PPAG could've challenged the Council's decision in December '08 but waited over 2 and a half years. They even waited for 3-4 months after the planning application was granted, until the project was out to tender, at which point their challenge would inevitably cause delay.

They left their action till the very last minute.

This is only an observation, it must not be interpreted as me knowing something which I don't kow. or not knowing something which I do. Or don't. Regardless, here are my thoughts:

Legal challenges are costly. I think there can be no doubt about that. Nobody starts up a costly legal process without giving it plenty of consideration beforehand. As far as I can gather, PPAG have been, and are fundraising to cover their legal expenses. Perhaps, and don't get all excited here, IT IS JUST MY OPINION, perhaps they had to wait until funds had reached a certain level before proceding with their legal challenge. And if this is the case then so be it. Would we really want to live in a society where only those who can afford the best legal representation get to make decisions regardless of the law? Should we accept that those who cannot afford to meet legal expenses don't get the protection of the law? Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and box ticking should not detract from that. A delay in making a challenge should not automatically mean that it's a done deal.

[Makaveli]

But surely if you believe that you are right in the eyes of the law then fear of losing and thus having high legal fees would not be a consideration?

Thus meaning no need for a delay correct?

[Scoop]

It is a little naive to believe that lawyers only take on cases that they think they can win - if only! Payments made to account, and sometimes in advance will have been requested. That is pretty normal practice regardless of the expected outcome. And no, that does no mean I am saying that I think PPAG's legal representation, or the council's for that matter, are in any way incompetent, or should be subject to scrutiny, just before I get accused of saying it.

[seanie]

A delay in making a challenge should not automatically mean that it's a done deal.

Automatically? No.

But there are other valid considerations.

It's important that decisions can be challenged, and if the disparity in resources discourages that it's potentially harmful, which is why I support the idea of Protective Cost Orders. But reasonable delay is still an important consideration. In public cases like this, it’s prejudicial to good administration for actions not to be brought promptly, because decisions lead to actions with further consequences, some of them financial, and Councils can’t sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting for legal challenges that might never come. Let's look at the chronology;

December 2008 – Full Council meeting decides they will not be taking the matter to court.
December 2008 – PPAG deputation to the Council states that they intend to launch a legal challenge.
June 2009 – A letter to the Evening News confirms PPAG’s intention to launch a legal action.
February 2010 - PPAG writes to the Council suggesting a joint court action.
March 2010 – Council replies saying no, as already decided, they will not be taking the matter to court.
March 2010 – Full Council meeting confirms that, as decided, they will not be taking the matter to court.
March 2010 – PPAG deputation to the Council states that they intend to launch a legal challenge.
September 2010 – PPAG writes to the Council stating that they intend to launch a legal challenge.
March 2011 – PPAG writes to the Council suggesting a joint court action.
April 2011 – Council replies saying no, as already decided, they will not be taking the matter to court.
July 2011 – PPAG finally launch a legal challenge.

The position the Council took in December ’08 remains unchanged, but what followed was a long drawn out process of PPAG threatening legal action but not bringing any, suggesting joint action and being rebuffed, threatening legal action but not bringing any, suggesting joint action and being rebuffed, then finally bringing an action after more than two-and-a-half years.

Even after the planning application was granted, at which point PPAG must'vr known that a legal challenge from then was they're last chance of stopping it, they delayed launching a legal action for 3-4 months.

It's not enough to keep threatening legal action. You have to put your money where your mouth is within a reasonable timeframe. A cynic might think that, rather than PPAG attempting to resolve the situation, their behaviour represents an attempt to stave off a claim of delay through an illusion of activity.

[Scoop]

Quite an expensive point to make, wouldn't you think? Quite an expensive delaying tactic, which according to many on here, is futile. They have now put their money where their mouths are, albeit, it is not in keeping with your idea of timescale. It's not in anyone's interests to allow a case to take up the court's time.

[seashell]

Payments made to account, and sometimes in advance will have been requested. .

Do you instruct counsel often, Scoop? You appear have inside knowledge.
Not that I'm speculating, or even conjecturing.
Nor am I Bob, Sean or anyone else here - except myself, of course. I thought I should just make that clear.

[Scoop]

I wouldn't touch a lawyer with a barge pole. They are, in my opinion, THE most self regulating group of "professionals". Ok, maybe not, second to bankers. In my opinion. As for the inside knowledge bit, yes, I have that, but to presume that it can only have been through my instructing "counsel" is blinkered.

[seashell]

So you haven't instructed counsel then?
You must have had some other experience of how they tender their fees then.