New Portobello High School - PPAG win legal appeal

[rmolehusband]

[Epykat]

[wangi]

[rmolehusband]

[Epykat]

[Epykat]

[rmolehusband]

[rmolehusband]

[Porty]

[AndyB]

[Pal of Porty]

How about this from the 'Save Porty Park, Facebook page:

We are pleased to hear that funding has been announced for St. John's Primary School but we are concerned that Edinburgh Council may now have their eye on Brighton Park, Daisy Park or Rosefield Park as possible sites, given their central locations and Council ownership.

It makes Lord Haw Haw sound like an amateur.

[wangi]

[AndyB]

[Porty]

On the question of CG status let's not rush to judgment, it is a complex legal matter and none of us really know.

However, the idea/suggestion/proposition that Portobello Park was Common Good land WAS a construct of the early members of PPAG back in 2006. Was it ever raised by anyone prior to this?

I doubt PPAG did much research but they are definitely and solely responsible for the suggestion.

[Betty Windsor]

[wangi]

[Pal of Porty]

[rmolehusband]

[wangi]

[ozbeeuk]

[Porty]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[little miss moffat]

Saveportypark fb page is sooo comical. I read on other sites before that they were deleting posts they did not like and blocked the people who made the posts. I have just spent an hour and a half discussing with one of their members the inaccurate information she was posting on their page. There was no offensive posts from either side (unless you include my original post stating that she was being economical with the truth and the reasons why). Obviously all the administrators were still at work as none of my posts were being deleted. One of their administrators must have signed in at 4.15ish, as all the posts (including their own members post) that were posted in that hour and half have all now disappeared lol. Oh and you guessed it, I have now been blocked from commenting. I don't think I will ever take anyone from PPAG seriously again, after seeing this with my own eyes. They obviously didn't want the general public reading that one of their members were being economical with the truth lol.

[David Robertson]

Many thanks to Porty and Epykat for their welcomes, it is appreciated.

So who thinks the Council will be going back to Court?

[gillian]

[little miss moffat]

Hello David and Welcome, I am a new member (of only a few days) myself. Just call me LMM, my name is toooo long lol.

[seashell]

Ah, LMM - you have joined an ever-growing band of those who are barred from the PPAG page.
Any comment that does not chime in with their world-view is, as you have found, deleted and the poster is banned thereafter.

PPAG don't want rational discussion on their page and they don't want to acknowledge that anyone might have a valid point if it does not agree with their own. m isinformation is their standard operating procedure. They take being economical with the actualite to a new level. A very low level indeed.

Welcome to David too! Will the Council go back to court? I sincerely hope so.

And tagging onto the discussions about Andy Wightman - I've met him and he is a very dedicated man, who was called before parliament to give evidence as part of consultations before the passing of the new Land Registration Act earlier this year. He is very knowledgeable on his subject and his latest book "The Poor had No Lawyers" makes very interesting reading.

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

Andy Wightman has taken a lot of stick from PPAG supporters. In their eyes, he has gone from hero of the people to traitor. I think what drives Andy is a sense of fairness and justice. I think he sees the PPAG campaign for what it is. He doesn't have to take sides in this issue, I think we know where his sympathies lie.

[seashell]

Well, Andy certainly has been doing this for a long time, which proves his commitment.
He's basically a land rights campaigner who is not in it for the money, but for justice for the ordinary people.

[Porty]

I'm on record dozens of times, stating the CG status would need to be tested in court.If there's blame to be dished out then we so called PFAnies have to shoulder our share. We had 6 years to challenge it and simply took it at face value. No party will emerge from this looking rosy. Certainly not ppag. Upside is; the school will go ahead.

[seanie]

I think Andy's view is that Common Good could once again be what it was originally; communal assets vital to the well-being of a community, assets that should be managed by a community, in their own interests. So the Common Good should be dynamic, not preserved in aspic by title deeds drawn up in the 19th century.

In that light he won't be happy with Local Authorities using Common Good assets in any way they see fit, or by legal technicalities frustrating things that have community benefit and support. One things that is clear is that the whole area of Common Good is a bit of a mess.

[Bob Jefferson]

I remember being surprised and disappointed at the time, when the Council conceded that the park was CG. But we all fell for the same line, that it didn't matter anyway because of what had happened in Lanarkshire. It's easy to be wise with hindsight. And of course we still don't know for sure, even though all the available evidence seems to point one way.

[little miss moffat]