New Portobello High School - on going issues

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Pal of Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

From the EN Letters Page a few days ago (4th letter down):

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

Andrew Burns writes in today's EN:

[Bob Jefferson]

And further comment from Andrew Burns relating to his EN piece.

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN Letters Page (last letter down):

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN:

[Bob Jefferson]

Admin: copyright etc discussion has been moved to .

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN Letters Page (4th letter down):

[Maria]

From today's EN letters page :





and

[Porty]

Stephen Hawkins should not be twisting what I said, which was: "What the wider community wants is use of less than 10% of one of Portobell's numerous public parks" I am not speaking for the wider community when I said that its a bloody FACT!!

He is right about th 10% thing tho' its 25%.

[Maria]

There seems to be some debate as to whether Portobello Park means the area containing the golf course and the football pitches or just the pitches minus the golf course. If ,like me, you find it difficult to picture the size of area being discussed this aerial shot might be useful.

[Bob Jefferson]

Stephen Hawkins has chosen to deliberately misunderstand SM and knows perfectly well that he was referring to the park in its entirety. The term Portobello Park has been used by the Council to differentiate it from the golf course but is, as Epykat is fond of reminding us, an artificial construct.

Looking at the aerial map reminds of us two things. Firstly, this is a huge area of green space, dwarfing other local parks. Secondly, it is slap bang in the centre of the catchment area served by the school.

I personally believe that the area occupied by the golf course could be put to much better use for the whole community, but what really strikes me as ironic is that Councillor Hawkins and his merry band of PPAGers are happy to defend the rights of a relatively small number of golfers and grant them, effectively, exclusive use of the vast majority of this green space while simultaneously seeking to block the use of a much smaller section that would meet the educational needs of literally thousands of local children for generations to come.

I don't get it. Maybe they just don't like children?

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Skeely]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

Meanwhile, back on the EN Letters Page:

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's Scotsman:

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's Evening News:

[Bob Jefferson]

Also from today's EN:

[Bob Jefferson]

And there's more from today's EN Letters Page:

1.

2.

3.

[mr magnolia]

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN Letters Page:

[Bob Jefferson]

I agree entirely with mr magnolia that a better approach would have been to take the park as a whole and think about how it can be used to best advantage for the whole community, to include a new high school of course.

That exercise might result in re-modelling the golf course, reducing it to six holes or even relocating it. With imagination, Portobello Park could be anything we wanted it to be. There could be room for things like wildlife gardens, allotments and community orchards. Just last night someone (a golfer interestingly enough) suggested that a running track could be built around the perimeter of the park. What a brilliant idea! If only our politicians had the same courage and vision. If only the nimbys could see the opportunity we have to create a park for the people.

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

From today's EN: