New Portobello High School - PPAG Judicial Review

[seanie]

[Makaveli]

So about a fifth of the park or 20% if you want a percentage.

Wrong again Betty.

[wangi]

Reminder to sign the petition: http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/dea ... ppeal.html

Currently 972 signatures.

[seanie]

Ah...but for 'accounting' purposes PPAG simply pretend that the golf course doesn't exist.

I wonder if they manage their financial accounts in a similarly creative way?

[Makaveli]

Maybe some of the PPAG can't see the golf course from their houses on Park Avenue so in their eyes it doesn't exist!!!

[Betty Windsor]

[Betty Windsor]

[seanie]

Seems on the high side to me. And since the all-weather pitches will be freely accessible they shouldn't really be included in the calculation. They're just an improvement to the existing pitches.

[Betty Windsor]

[seanie]

[Chas]

[Betty Windsor]

[Porty]

[Mark Cameron]

[Pal of Porty]

[Betty Windsor]

[Betty Windsor]

[Mark Cameron]

Betty you seem to be missing (or ignoring) a key thing in that the court listened the arguements and have ruled on it. Why can't you just let it go. Sometimes in life things go against you - PPAG need to show some dignity and move on.

[Betty Windsor]

[Pal of Porty]

[storky]

[Betty Windsor]

[gillian]

[Chas]

[Porty]

I don't have a garden, i don't have kids who will attend the school, I don't live in the area, I'm from the Christians, went to school in Magdalene- so I'm hardly Bett'y's stereotypical school in the park supporter.

In no way could I profess to speak on behalf of the people who live or who are from Magdalene or the Christians. However, i have spoken with many; at work, in the pub, in the street - i know a lot of people. The overwhelming perception people have is a) the school is being built on the golf course and b) the scheme will include housing.

They got this idea from the council's original proposal, which was abandoned some six years ago. the myth continues to be perpetuated by PPAG who have lied continually throughout.

Once people are availed of the truth they seem generally in favour of a school in th epark (with pitches)

As for Betty's imagined "PFANS v the poor people of Magadalene/Christians/" She made it up. In reality she is no closer or more representative of those people than anyone else here. It is a desperado that deals in unsubstantiated claims as the facts don't fit her discourse.

[Pal of Porty]

[rmolehusband]

[Betty Windsor]

For anyone actually interested in the truth I've attached the timeline of events.
If some of you could open your minds for 5 mnutes and entertain the possibility that the council has pulled a fast one here, read on.

[seashell]

[quote="Betty Windsor]
you want ... to pursue a legitimate community action group for costs .[/quote]

Yes, that's exactly what most people here and many across Edinburgh want the Council to do.
Let's put this in context: after PPAG announced they were appealing Lady Dorrian's very clear and forthright decision, the Council decided that enough was enough and that they would claim for expenses against PPAG, as they are entitled to do in terms of the law.
It is also the view of many people, including myself, that having lost the case on all counts, PPAG are now engaged in spoiling tactics designed not only to drag out the inevitable conclusion, but also to cost the people of Edinburgh even more money. Let's not forget that PPAG were appealing the Council's decision to use the park on the grounds that this was not permitted under the Act. While Lady Dorrian found on mora (and isn't it ironic they are now engaging in more time-delaying tactics?) she also ruled that the appropriation was fine - just as the council had said it was all along.
It therefore seems entirely right and appropriate that the people of Edinburgh should no longer have to fund this legitimate group's tactics when their arguments have been found to have no basis in law.

Court action is risky.
There is always the possibility you will lose and that expenses will be awarded against you.
PPAG lost.
And now many people are wondering how they are going to fund their appeal, regardless of whether or not they have to pay the Council first. It's an interesting point, but one on which they have been very silent.

[seashell]

[gillian]

"Yes there I go again. I'm surprised you don't speak up for them more given that they make up a large portion of your clientele"

This comment has made me realise that you are not worth arguing with, in what way does who goes into PoP's shop have anything whatsoever to do with the argument about where a new school should go? Don't bother answering, you have made one offensive comment too many for me.

[Betty Windsor]

[seanie]

[wangi]

[seashell]

that might just read that you are suggesting Lady Dorrian's decision did not reflect the facts of the matter... If you recall, a timeline was presented by PPAG as one of their pieces of evidence.

Of course, there is the inconvenient truth about PPAG being sued for expenses and the legitimate concerns people have about how they could possibly fund an appeal, which leads to the inevitable conclusion that it may be a spoiling tactic when the battle is already lost.