New Portobello High School - on going issues

by **Bob Jefferson** » 27 Nov 2008, 21:34

Remember, you read it here first folks!

Full marks btw to seanie for his one-man information centre over on the comments section pertaining to this article. What always strikes me is how little the general public seem to understand about the reality of the situation at PHS. Even now, some people seem to think that the school just needs a bit of refurbishment!

This type of 'copy and paste' argument may be old hat for those who are familiar with the territory, but it's quite obvious from some of the exchanges that to some people it's an insight that may just make them reconsider their position.

Never underestimate the ignorance of your audience.

by **Pal of Porty** » 27 Nov 2008, 22:03

by **Porty** » 29 Nov 2008, 10:53

admin: deleted

by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Dec 2008, 11:19

From today's Scotsman:

by **Porty** » 01 Dec 2008, 11:22

Now we could do with some money from Mr Swinney.

by **seanie** » 01 Dec 2008, 11:24

Has this story been triggered by anything or is it just a space filler?

by **Porty** » 01 Dec 2008, 11:28

The legal opinion from both junior and senior council has been anticipated, since the end of October I believe. Maybe they have it now and are pressing on. Seems too much of a coincidence not to be the case.

Can you recall what the amendment said on 21/12/2006? I think it was something like "take it to court IF neccessary".

by **seanie** » 01 Dec 2008, 11:55

by **Porty** » 01 Dec 2008, 12:09

by **Porty** » 01 Dec 2008, 12:28

by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Dec 2008, 12:29

I understand that this is a new development. The Council has taken advice from senior counsel and is now confident that it can go ahead without the need for recourse to court. They view it "as cast-iron as these things can be."

Official press statement to follow.

by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Dec 2008, 12:31

And as Porty suggests, the removal of the doubt over building on Common Good land now puts us on a level playing field in time for the December meeting.

by **seanie** » 01 Dec 2008, 12:45

In the recent cases involving North and South Lanarkshire Councils, their petitions were dismissed as unnecessary; they didn't need approval from the courts. But even so I'd be suprised if they didn't want to confirm that they could proceed.

On the other hand, if you're sure that what you're doing is perfectly legal, why spend money taking it to court only to be told you don't need to?

by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Dec 2008, 12:50

by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Dec 2008, 13:24

From today's EN:

by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Dec 2008, 13:28

by **seanie** » 01 Dec 2008, 13:42

by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Dec 2008, 14:20

by **seanie** » 01 Dec 2008, 14:25

by **seashell** » 01 Dec 2008, 14:29

by **Porty** » 01 Dec 2008, 16:55

by **seanie** » 01 Dec 2008, 17:10

by **Porty** » 01 Dec 2008, 17:10

by **Porty** » 01 Dec 2008, 17:13

by **seanie** » 01 Dec 2008, 17:19

by **seanie** » 01 Dec 2008, 17:26

by **Porty** » 01 Dec 2008, 17:30

by **Pal of Porty** » 01 Dec 2008, 17:32

by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Dec 2008, 17:34

New Portobello High School - on going issues

Demand Compensation et al

Who is online