New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[Puerto bella]

Epy - behave or that puppy will chew your favourite cashmere sweater as a form of karma.

[wangi]

[Doris]

[Porty]

Charlie Miller- Portobello Park is not greenbelt land, the existing school was not built on parkland, the site for the new school was decided democratically and unanimously.

Therefore, nobody will take you seriously. If people wish to treat you as ridiculous, its fair enough.

Out of interest; what new school will benefit your child, Holyrood?

[Bob Jefferson]

What happens in a democracy Charlie, is that the majority view prevails. The majority want the new school to be built on the democratically-agreed site without further delay. You are part of a small minority that is thwarting the will of the people and should stand aside for the greater good of the community. If you think the current PHS is good enough for your child, then perhaps you don't value education as highly as the rest of us.

[cuth]

I hate to disagree with you Bob but in a representative democracy like ours the minority view almost always prevails. No party has ever gained more than 50% of the vote in a post-war general election yet there has almost always been a parliamentary majority.

I don't think democracy will get us a new school.

[Porty]

There is some basis in what you say generally speaking. In this case the turnout at the last two local elections was more than 50%. And there was cross party and unanimous agreement to site the school in the park.

[Lashylass]

Bob Jefferson obviously doesn't rate the education at Porty High as he has previously stated that he will be sending his daughter elsewhere. It does make you question why he is therefore obsessed with building a school on a park which will have no relevance to his daughter's education.

[Bob Jefferson]

Here we go again. OK, evidence please.

[Bob Jefferson]

Failing which, you can join the end of the queue of PPAG supporters who have lied and now owe me an apology.

[Puerto bella]

I think we need to depersonalise this Lashylass - that's a below the belt blow.
I dont see how its any of your business what Bob and his wife decide to do for their daughter's education and find that quite offensive to be honest.

[Porty]

Well said PB. Although it already is depersonalised for Lashylass. We can clearly see its toxicity but we don't know for sure who it is.

[gillian]

[Puerto bella]

Even if you dont use a facility - you can still respect people's right to have the best possible facility they can achieve - whether its a school, swimming pool, community centre or whatever - you dont have to result in an audit of whose kids go where. Entirely irrelevant.
Just because I dont fly doesnt mean I dont want Edinburgh to have a good airport.

[Epykat]

[Bob Jefferson]

If people don't like being branded as liars then perhaps they should stop telling lies. I'm still waiting for both Betty Windsor and Lashylass to produce evidence of their statements. I can save them the time by telling them that no such evidence exists. So, instead, they can apologise and then we can move on.

[Epykat]

[Bob Jefferson]

Epykat, I know these people are your friends but you are defending the indefensible as far as I'm concerned. Not only are they liars but they don't even have the good grace to apologise. Why should anyone respect their opinions in that case?

[seashell]

you do not have to be a genius to work out that this is yet another red herring thrown into the ring in a futile attempt to divert attention from the real matter at hand, which is the increasingly desperate lies promugated by PPAg and their small but misguided band of supporters. Nobody disputes their right to disagree about the site of the school, but rather their tactics. When they are prepared to make statements to the press that fly in the face of the facts, well, that says it all.
But to stoop so low as to attempt to tackle Bob over his daughter, that is a low blow too far. Where she goes to school is nobody's business but the immediate family's. yet again, another attempt to personalise the whole affair.

this goes beyond pathetic to downright offensive.

As other posters have pointed out, the bleeding obvious fact is that the school is an issue which concerns the whole community. And the reason PPAG are objecting has the issue of NIMBYism at its core. We all know that.

[seashell]

[Mark Cameron]

Does anyone know if the council have formally served PPAG with the 'bill' yet?

They may get a wake up call when they see the request for costs in black and white until then perhaps they,think CEC are bluffing.

[Lashylass]

I have no intention of apologising for anything I have said. I was merely reiterating a fact stated by Bob Jefferson some time ago that his daughter would be going to a different school. If he chooses to publicly comment on where his daughter will be schooled why should he question anyone else mentioning it and then demand an apology. As for asking for apologies from a proven band of liars (as seashell said) well I'm almost speechless. There have been so many lies and accusations made by certain people I think they've become immune to the truth - and they haven't apologised!

[Bob Jefferson]

[seanie]

[seashell]

Lashylass - I believe that your latest tactic is called 'playing the man, rather than the ball'.

It's not big and it's not clever. But it does now appear to be a PPAG technique. As does wearing blinkers and ignoring the inconvenient truth: PPAG lost the judicial review on mora plus their argument on appropriation was not found to be based in law. The council are now sueing for costs. PPAG have remained silent on how they will find the money, yet continue on with legal action, waiting until the very last minute to lodge an appeal. The council then move for the appeal to be heard at the earliest possible date, whereupon PPAG immediately claim this was their idea. You couldn't invent this stuff. nor could you believe PPAG's lies unless you have some serious comprehension problems

Why do PPAG supporters/apologists on this board consistently ignore the issues and generally attempt to throw mud at others? People who live in glass houses etc. Of course, if your glass house happens to be near the park, then you don't want the school children anywhere in the immediate vicinity. That's the real issue here. We all know that.

[Chas]

[seashell]

[Puerto bella]

Can we draw a line in the sand though - would all directly involved be prepared to do that rather than the who said what when thing......everyone's guilty of that.

[Bob Jefferson]

Absolutely. I guess it would be asking too much for them to apologise, but once both Betty Windsor and Lashylass admit that they have no evidence to back up their allegations, then I'm prepared to forgive them. We can't just dispense with the truth, otherwise there would be no point to any discussion.

[Sceptic]

Having spent some time reading posts, it would seem that some people, who seem like the "Portobello Against Virtually Everything" Brigade are alive and, some might say unfortunately, well.

Can we, for the last time start to see that;

1) This is the only viable place for Portobello High School. All other sites are too small or at the edge of Catchment.
2) This was not decided on lightly. It is not a whim.
3) If not decided soon, the whole contract fails.
4) This means the whole new tranche of Schools fails.
5) This affects not just the children of Portobello and it's surrounds, but those across Edinburgh
6) Can we all stop the "Fifteen Rounds, two falls, two submissions or aknockout" to decide the winner?
7) So far, no-one has won, everyone has lost.
If the costs are decided against, who is liable? This could be very serious indeed.
9) May I say, from what I have heard, Portobello is the laughing stock, not just of Edinburgh, but of Scotland.

Thank You.

[Puerto bella]

What I meant above is if we park whatever they, you, whoever has said up till now and move on now to a discussion where everyone agrees not to repeat first or second hand anecdotal evidence or hearsay as fact and agrees not to target individuals then we can have a discussion about the issues. We're not forgetting what's happened but we're having a time out from those discussions that are clearly unhealthy and going nowhere? We need to come back and deal with them but I dont think now is the time - maybe after an agreed cool off period....and if the PPAG supporters could relay this to their chiefs I would be eternally grateful.

[Bob Jefferson]

[Puerto bella]

...and is there as equally succinct a reply from the other side on their take?
How do they see the scenarios what what is their damage limitation strategy - we all have to live together peacefully afterall and none of us wants this depiction of the split community.
If they win - what happens then. If they loose are we talking Supreme Court and more anguish for all?

[Bob Jefferson]

[seashell]

It would appear the Supreme Court would be a possibility.
Equally, if PPAG win the appeal, the council may wish to go to the Supreme Court. Having gone this far down the road, what other option would they have realistically?

Let's consider another possibility: the school, which all agree is no longer fit for purpose, is declared structurally unsound in the next couple of years. Or a child is seriously injured. Can PPAG then be taken to court on the grounds of their delaying tactics?

However, taking full account of your very valid points, I do feel I must comment on the spurious claim by PPAG to have moved for an early hearing of the appeal. This is an outright lie which they continue to perpetrate. And my saying this is not hearsay, but fact.