New Portobello High School - on going issues

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Maria]

[tom nimmo]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Porty]

[Bob Jefferson]

[wangi]

Can everyone please remember this thread is about the High School and related issues; not for comments about the thread itself, posters, their motivation or whatever else -- this goes for a number of posts above.

Future posts will be edited to remove off-topic parts.

[Bob Jefferson]

OK, here's what PPAG, and now Porty, obtained through FOI. Apologies for the quality of the text. I don't know why the Council couldn't just forward the original emails rather than print them and then badly scan them but I'm sure they have their reasons. They should be in chronological order.

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Bob Jefferson]

And finally.....

[tom nimmo]

I've had second thoughts about not following this thread and posting my comments. I am mindful of the request above to stick to the thread and not to make comments about other posters however, I must say that I am impressed by Porty's ability to dredge up all the evidence against me from previous posts. I salute your attention to detail sir and I envy your computer skills.

I've read through the council stuff above regarding 'common good' and I have to say it got me thinking about what my definition of 'common good' would be. In my opinion, it is in the 'common good', or common interest, to strive for excellence in the provision of education and leisure facilities for the people of Portobello. I've no idea what the definition of 'common good' would have been when Portobello park was created but I don't doubt that education and leisure facilities would have had a fairly high value. I'm also trying to imagine what Portobello would look like in ten years time if the school is relocated to the park and its original site contains housing. I'm also imagining that the Scottish Power site is completed and there are around 800 new homes there too. I suspect that Portobello will have changed beyong all recognition if all this actually happens but I also optimistically suspect that it would be a fantastically vibrant and diverse place to live. I am now going to try and imagine that it is possible to please all of the people all of the time. Wish me luck.

[seanie]

The correspondence on Common Good looks pretty innocuous.

Am I missing something?

[Bob Jefferson]

Nope, that's it in its entirety and, as I predicted, there is nothing interesting, nothing contentious and nothing we didn't already know. Sorry to disappoint everyone, especially the conspiracy theorists among you. This is about as exciting as council business gets.

[Bob Jefferson]

Tom, I agree with just about everything in your last post, including your tribute to Porty, although I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or kind.

Furthermore, I'm genuinely excited about the prospect of a new school on Portobello Park and the opportunities that affords not only to pupils and parents but to the wider community as well. We all have a stake in this and we all need to get involved in the design process in a real and meaningful way.

And like you, we all need to step outside the box and look at the bigger picture over 10 or 20 years. There are no absolute rights and wrongs here, it's a question of balancing opinion, rights, principles and priorities with a liberal dash of reality check. But let's not forget that we are talking about creating a learning environment for the people who will eventually replace us.

[Maria]

[Porty]

[tom nimmo]

Strong stuff once again from Porty. I have not read anything about the actual claim that compensation will be sought if/when the park goes so I am not in a position to know if you are over-reacting or taking things deliberately out of context because you have a personal thing going on here Porty. When this first appeared I originally thought that the 'compensation' offered was a new golf course near Brunstane and I always assumed that the money raised from the sale of the High School site would pay for this. I now understand that the golf course is not under threat so a new one is no longer needed. If your interpretation of what is being asked for is true then yes, I agree that to ask for compensation to be paid to.... (who exactly would this be paid to?).... Portobello to compensate for the loss of some football pitches and the addition of a new school is a ridiculous notion. To the people who are trying to save the park it is the park itself that is vital to them so there surely cannot be any amount that would compensate for its loss. I'm not a golfer but I expect that a golf course can go pretty much anywhere nearby if there is the space but I doubt that Portobello park could go anywhere other than, well, Portobello park. I think you are being a bit harsh on Diana as all she is doing is fighting her corner, just as you are fighting yours. Some of the rhetoric being used in this thread is a bit on the dramatic side and it seems that all participants are putting themselves forward as 'the voice of Portobello' (except me of course) so it's a bit unfair that you have singled out Diana. Bob has been banging on about "our children" and recently you were talking about "our lifeblood". I was waiting for you to start referring to the park as 'living space in the east' and I would have been convinced that you had been reading Mein Kampf again.

[Bob Jefferson]

Tom, can I just point out that we are not losing the football pitches. They may be re-configured but that's all.

[Maria]

[tom nimmo]

[Porty]

Yeah I agree Tom, it is strong stuff, i don't apologise as I abhor when people put themselves forward as speaking on behalf of the "people of Portobello". Those who choose to do this, and there are very few. are singling themselves out. Diana is by far the worst perpetrator, there must be 10 or more examples documented here on TP, she reads the posts here, knows it upsets people and that its wrong but she carries on regardless. Stephen Hawkins used to do it now and again, ironically now that he has actually been elected he has refrained, presumably he is wary of the consequences?

Believe it or not, its not personal from me, I would feel the same about anyone using that filthy tactic. Conversely, when someone puts themselves forward as speaking on my behalf, I take that personally and I'm almost certain you would feel the same.

"The land belongs to the people of Portobello, who would have to be financially compensated via the common good fund for its loss."- Diana Cairns Evening News Feb 18th 2008

I find it very hard to accept that any intelligent, experienced activist produces a "throwaway remark" when sitting down to write a campaign letter that is going to be read by thousands of people. Especially when attaching ones name to it.

You suggest I may be misinterpreting Diana's financial compensation statement. I don't believe so. Out of interest what is your interpretation?

You've said that you think any claim for financial compensation would be a ridiculous notion. When you ran the fundraisong quiz for PPAG, were you aware that in the event of the battle being lost and the school being built on the park, the money you helped raise could go towards a fight for personal financial compensation, for all or some of the "people of Portobello"?

I have to disagree with you when you say that everyone here puts themselves forward as being the "voice of Portobello". The vast majority of us are careful to ensure that we do not broadcast in such a fashion.

[seanie]

[tom nimmo]

[seanie]

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

Tom, I don't doubt for one minute that your contribution to the PPAG cause was well intended and I respect you for sticking up for your belief. Similarly, I respect and appreciate that you have altered your opinion on the location of the school.

As Seanie says the Common Good factor is not going to make much difference either way. The Portobello Reporter states that the council will have to "pay market value" into the CGF should it build the school on the park. I wonder what the source was for that woefully inaccurate piece of information? I know Dave Connelly used to make that claim £Millions I think it was, although he never gave us any precedents. Dave is a voice of PPAG so maybe it came from them? There's certainly not any precedent that I'm aware of.

It reminds me of the Reporter article in one of the recent editions "New Schools-The Debate Continues" - I have extracted the paragraph on PPAG and Common Good.

"It has now emerged, however that Portobello Park Action Group (PPAG) has received legal opinion from a leading planning QC, who told them he believes the land forms part of the common good, and that local residents would have a good chance of success if they were to take the Council to court to prevent them build-ing on it. Common good land forms part of the Council’s assets, which it holds for the benefit of the wider community"

I'm afraid that's not what the QC told PPAG. In fact he said there was no more than a reasonable chance of success in proving the land was common good but that did not mean that the council could not build on it. He opined that if the land were to be proved common good it did not render the land"inalienable" . Which means the council could sell it and it could be built on. (subject to planning)

The Portobello Reporter appears to be loaded in favour of PPAG, taking what they say as read rather than checking out the facts. Has PFANS ever had a mention in the PR? How did the Portobello Reporter react to the news that funding was not to be forthcoming, was it headlines on the front page? I can't recall but i'm fairly sure it wasn't?

[Bob Jefferson]

The Portobello Reporter prides itself on its reputation for political independence and balanced reporting. The article on Common Good is uncredited so we don't know who wrote it.

Knowing what a contentious issue it is, I wouldn't even attempt to explain the current position in 200 words. As we know, it's complex and open to interpretation and there are still unanswered questions about the status of the land, why the Council changed its own opinion on the matter, whether it is indeed 'common good' and, if so, what difference it makes.

If there is perceived to be bias towards PPAG then I guess it's up to PFANS to ensure that the balance is restored in the next issue.

[Bob Jefferson]

[Porty]

[Porty]