New Portobello High School- Where and how?

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 26 Apr 2006, 09:00

the completely obvious (that when you build on green space you end up with less green space on the bit you built on)

Epykat and Dada will be pleased to know that the above point is proven when I tell them that the tenement in which they have both lived* in Wellington now Marlborough Street is built on the site of what was probably the first "Portobello Park"!

* Not at same time!

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 26 Apr 2006, 09:00

Dadaist wrote: education beats golf and there was no realistic alternative.

Regrettably I think you might have something here, but shall we wait and see what the council's options are?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 09:06

Poppy wrote:
the completely obvious (that when you build on green space you end up with less green space on the bit you built on)
Epykat and Dada will be pleased to know that the above point is proven when I tell them that the tenement in which they have both lived* in Wellington now Marlborough Street is built on the site of what was probably the first "Portobello Park"!

* Not at same time!

What's your point there Poppy?

Poppy · Post by **Poppy** » 26 Apr 2006, 09:25

Dadaist wrote:
Poppy wrote:
the completely obvious (that when you build on green space you end up with less green space on the bit you built on)
Epykat and Dada will be pleased to know that the above point is proven when I tell them that the tenement in which they have both lived* in Wellington now Marlborough Street is built on the site of what was probably the first "Portobello Park"!

* Not at same time!
What's your point there Poppy?

Not a "point" as such - just a piece of information. It is not meant to support or oppose either party in the present Portobello Park debate.

As you said, it is obvious that building on green space means losing green space - which has happened since the first human built a hut!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 09:29

Gilo wrote:
Dadaist wrote: education beats golf and there was no realistic alternative.
Regrettably I think you might have something here, but shall we wait and see what the council's options are?

For sure. Right up until the supermarket victory, people were saying that it was going to be a stitch-up - but I'm reminded of Rathbone's recent quote from Gordon Brown that councils crumble in the face of determined opposition.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 09:31

Stephen McIntyre wrote:
Dave Connelly wrote:
Stephen McIntyre wrote:Its a simple Yes or No answer and Alison built a whole alternative funding proposal around the assumption. I wonder why she will not answer it?

Come on Alison be nice: Did Ian Perry tell you that there would be an Â£18m shortfall?
I was there when Ian Perry Spoke to Alison about this, in fact as I recall there were three people there.
Dave, did Ian Perry tell either yourself, Alison or both of you that there would be an Â£18m shorfall?

This is getting boring, Stephen. I know you're frustrated and everything but it doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere.

Alison, I suggest the following - tell Stephen that the more times he asks you, the less likely he will be to get an answer!

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 26 Apr 2006, 10:08

This is getting boring, Stephen.

Understatement of the year??

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Apr 2006, 10:11

It may be boring but I'm not here to entertain you. I'm here to get a solution for the future of our childrens education. Alison came up with what on face value appeared to be a possible solution, a critical component was the council's ability to fund an Â£18m shortfall. What is being referred to as the "portobello question" is a simple yes or no answer and Alison has the answer. So in a way she may be protecting a solution that means no building on the Golf Course. So I will keep asking.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 10:18

Stephen McIntyre wrote:It may be boring but I'm not here to entertain you. I'm here to get a solution for the future of our childrens education. Alison came up with what on face value appeared to be a possible solution, a critical component was the council's ability to fund an Â£18m shortfall. What is being referred to as the "portobello question" is a simple yes or no answer and Alison has the answer. So in a way she may be protecting a solution that means no building on the Golf Course. So I will keep asking.

Fair enough. Can you move it to PM or email? I can't see any reason, now that everyone has read you ask her the same and rephrased versions so many times, that you need to keep asking her in public. You're not Paxman and this isn't Newsnight. In fact you're more like Paxo - constantly stuffing the thread with the same question.

If you refuse to move your conversation to PM/email - can you at least limit the number of times you ask this question to an agreed period - like once a week to start?

That way you can have all the fun of deciding whether to ask on Monday morning bright and fresh, or maybe on Friday aftie when we least expect it?

Anything, please, I just beg you to break this monotonous repetition.

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Apr 2006, 10:20

There is a quick and easy way to stop the question being asked, Alison has the means. Yes or No?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 10:22

bbbrown wrote:
This is getting boring, Stephen.
Understatement of the year??

Maybe I have been very patient. Do you think we should do a poll - Stephen will listen to the community surely?

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 26 Apr 2006, 10:24

It may be boring but I'm not here to entertain you

well you certainly succeed there then.....

personally, i'm prepared to wait and see what rabbit the council is going to pull out of the hat to thrill us all when they eventually reveal just how much high quality but affordable housing they are going to cover the golf course with....

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 10:26

When is the council announcement / vote / meeting and does this mean that SM will stop pestering AC once things happen?

If that's the case, I can understand if he feels time is running out to get an answer.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 26 Apr 2006, 10:42

not sure, is it not early May that the Council is going to submit the master plan. a bit sketchy so far, but I think it may involve building lots of houses everywhere

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 10:45

bbbrown wrote:not sure, is it not early May that the Council is going to submit the master plan. a bit sketchy so far, but I think it may involve building lots of houses everywhere

All I want to know is - when they do publish all their numbers, does this mean that Stephen McIntyre will stop asking Alison Connelly the same question all the time?

Stephen McIntyre · Post by **Stephen McIntyre** » 26 Apr 2006, 11:07

Hey, that's not fair. I don't Alison the same question all of the time. Sometimes I ask her ones like this:

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Alison, what is your interpretation of the PFAN's statement "Approximately half of the whole park area would be involved"? And how did PFANS arrive at that figure?

And what is your interpretation of the PPAG' s statement "This would result in at least two-thirds of the park being built on"? And how did PPag's arrive at their figure?

To use one Alison very own phrases "clarify or lie?

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 11:40

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Hey, that's not fair. I don't Alison the same question all of the time. Sometimes I ask her ones like this:

Stephen McIntyre wrote:Alison, what is your interpretation of the PFAN's statement "Approximately half of the whole park area would be involved"? And how did PFANS arrive at that figure?

And what is your interpretation of the PPAG' s statement "This would result in at least two-thirds of the park being built on"? And how did PPag's arrive at their figure?
To use one Alison very own phrases "clarify or lie?

You are picking nits like Mr Nitty the nit-picking nit picker.

PPAG are opposed to the plan. PFANS support the plan. The plan has a school being built where the golf course was.

Anyway, can you please attend to my assertion regarding lies.

gilo · Post by **gilo** » 26 Apr 2006, 11:55

Coming Soon To Portobelly Telly-

"Rebel Without A Clue"

Living on the moral highground, Rebel Without A Clue fought the evils of council planning. "I'm Green and I love kids too, but the pesky council are trying to tarmac everywhere just to annoy us - come fight with me". Rebel Without A Clue didn't let silly things like limited resources and difficult decisions get in the way, oh no, Rebel Without A Clue lived far to high up for that. Rebel Without A Clue left the dirty work to the twisted, selfish, cynical PFANS who lived somewhere in the gutter.

Watch and find out what Rebel Without A Clue comes up with next....

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 26 Apr 2006, 12:14

Gilo wrote: Watch and find out what Rebel Without A Clue comes up with next....

I think you're the one without a clue

Those of us who are against housing being built on the golf course are extremely clued up - which is why we're against the proposals.

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 26 Apr 2006, 12:17

I dont think this is about the "moral highground" or people being clueless or PFANS being twisted, cynical or selfish. Such language just aims to rubbish opinions. You sound like you were schooled in some Labour propoganda academy.

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 26 Apr 2006, 12:30

Poppy wrote:
the completely obvious (that when you build on green space you end up with less green space on the bit you built on)
Epykat and Dada will be pleased to know that the above point is proven when I tell them that the tenement in which they have both lived* in Wellington now Marlborough Street is built on the site of what was probably the first "Portobello Park"!

Nothing wrong with that! They gave the then 'antis' the statutory 20% green space which later turned into a very pleasant back green. No need to moan.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 12:36

It were a gorgeous back green and thats a fact.

Anyway Poppy - why didn't you pick on Richard Butt - he is on Marlborough St too as is JP!

Epykat · Post by **Epykat** » 26 Apr 2006, 12:39

Dadaist wrote:It were a gorgeous back green and thats a fact.

Anyway Poppy - why didn't you pick on Richard Butt - he is on Marlborough St too as is JP!

Poppy wasn't picking on anybody Dada she was just pointing out the fact that a large green space was built upon years ago and it's now developed to the nth degree - just the same way the golf course is going to be. It's a Council tradition don't you know - goes back years

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 26 Apr 2006, 12:52

Dadaist wrote:This is getting boring, Stephen. I know you're frustrated and everything but it doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere!

I agree it is getting boring but equally I cannot see how Alison or Dave just cannot answer the question. I cannot see what the big deal is.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 26 Apr 2006, 12:54

bbbrown wrote:I dont think this is about the "moral highground" or people being clueless or PFANS being twisted, cynical or selfish. Such language just aims to rubbish opinions. You sound like you were schooled in some Labour propoganda academy.

Since when did Labour have a monopoly on propaganda acadamies?

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 26 Apr 2006, 12:56

BJ said

I'm hoping that the extent of the funding gap will be revealed tomorrow but there are probably still too many variables at this stage to say for sure. I would be concerned if it is as much as Â£18 M as this still leaves a lot of money to find.

even better maybe this man can enlighten us?...does the council even know?.....

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 13:01

Pal of Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:This is getting boring, Stephen. I know you're frustrated and everything but it doesn't seem to be getting you anywhere!
I agree it is getting boring but equally I cannot see how Alison or Dave just cannot answer the question. I cannot see what the big deal is.

If I am Alison's proxy and you are Proxy Of Porty does that not mean we have to fight each other?

*pow* Take that!! *biff* And that!!

bbbrown · Post by **bbbrown** » 26 Apr 2006, 13:01

Since when did Labour have a monopoly on propaganda acadamies?

The Labour Party has perfected the art of Bull S***g/Propoganda/Spin...call it what you will.
Its what they do best (and about all they do these days)

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 13:05

bbbrown wrote:
Since when did Labour have a monopoly on propaganda acadamies?
The Labour Party has perfected the art of Bull Sh***ng/Propoganda/Spin...call it what you will.
Its what they do best (and about al they do these days)

Quite right.

They also took the Enron approach to bribery and applied it to the Honours system!

It's such a shame that Maureen and Lawrence are in the same party as Bomber Blair - I just can't look at them without thinking of dead Iraqi kids.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 26 Apr 2006, 13:07

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 26 Apr 2006, 13:08

bbbrown wrote:
Since when did Labour have a monopoly on propaganda acadamies?
The Labour Party has perfected the art of Bull S***g/Propoganda/Spin...call it what you will.
Its what they do best (and about al they do these days)

I did not comment on Labour's ability in this regard one way or the other, I merely pointed out that that I believe they do not have a monopoly.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 26 Apr 2006, 13:09

Dadaist wrote:...*pow* Take that!! *biff* And that!!

Ouch! Take that too *-***!

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 13:10

Pal of Porty wrote:
bbbrown wrote:
Since when did Labour have a monopoly on propaganda acadamies?
The Labour Party has perfected the art of Bull Shitting/Propoganda/Spin...call it what you will.
Its what they do best (and about al they do these days)
I did not comment on Labour's ability in this regard one way or the other, I merely pointed out that that I believe they do not have a monopoly.

They've got Mayfair and Park Lane though.

Pal of Porty · Post by **Pal of Porty** » 26 Apr 2006, 13:12

Dadaist wrote:They've got Mayfair and Park Lane though.

Not to mention the Old Kent Road.......

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 26 Apr 2006, 13:16

Pal of Porty wrote:
Dadaist wrote:They've got Mayfair and Park Lane though.
Not to mention the Old Kent Road.......

Better watch out. The Topic Police will be round in a minute - we'll go straight to jail!

Let's not take a chance on that and get back to talking about the Community er ... chest