New Portobello High School - on going issues

by **seanie** » 28 Feb 2009, 17:53

You would've thought that PHS being prioritised for funding would've maybe merited the headline; the fact that the school buildings are in such a poor state that it's in the most need of replacement.

But no. That's just mentioned in passing.

It's obviously more important that PPAG object and that they be allowed to spread falsehoods.

by **Bob Jefferson** » 28 Feb 2009, 21:13

by **Porty** » 01 Mar 2009, 02:35

by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Mar 2009, 10:53

by **Maria** » 01 Mar 2009, 12:07

by **Porty** » 01 Mar 2009, 14:48

Maybe we are giving too much credit to the Portobello Reporter's power to influence. It has been firmly in PPAG's corner all along yet what difference has it made to their campaign? If the struggle to locate the school on the park was a boxing match, PPAG would still be looking to land their first punch let alone win a round.

I still don't agree with the lobbying argument Bob. I know that Brenda Molony has received a few letters complaining about the imbalanced reporting of the school issue- the efficacy of these letters can bew witnessed in the latest issue - it possibly made things worse.

I genuinely fear for the quality and integrity of the Paper. If you run the Portobello Reporter, have bundles of facts and a great, possibly the greatest story to tell about Portobello. Do you do what the Evening News and Reporting Scotland did: take the facts and go with a positive storyline? No, instead you build your story around a vacous falsehood from an unnamed ignorant zealot. It is totally inexcuseable.

What next? "Better School could be rebuilt on site"- A PPAG spokesperson has revealed that as far as she is aware PHS could be rebuilt on site with 6 outdoor pitches and a decant thet would result is several pupils winning Nobel prizes. And as far as she is aware it would only cost £10m.

by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Mar 2009, 15:47

Why not? If a PPAG spokesperson insists that the moon is made of cheese then that is their view and they are entitled to it. It is up to the readership to judge for themselves whether this is true or not.

You're right - complaining of bias is likely to be counter-productive and will only serve to antagonise the very people we should be trying to influence. What matters is making sure that you get your viewpoint across and that is what we failed to do. Three months to prepare a statement, create a photo opportunity, stage an event, anything to ensure that we got the headline story we wanted in the local community newspaper. Now if PFANS had done this and the Reporter had just ignored it all then you could quite legitimately accuse them of bias.

Does it matter either way? No, in that the school will be built on the park regardless. But I would far rather have the people of Portobello knowing the facts and understanding the arguments and welcoming the opportunities before us, rather than believing the nonsense that the PPAG propaganda machine has planted in the local press.

If PFANS was to produce 12500 leaflets setting the record straight, then I would be more than happy to help distribute them.

by **Porty** » 01 Mar 2009, 18:07

by **Bob Jefferson** » 01 Mar 2009, 20:14

by **Porty** » 02 Mar 2009, 00:46

by **Pal of Porty** » 02 Mar 2009, 11:08

by **Porty** » 02 Mar 2009, 16:12

by **Skeely** » 02 Mar 2009, 21:25

by **Pal of Porty** » 03 Mar 2009, 11:32

by **Porty** » 03 Mar 2009, 12:43

by **Porty** » 03 Mar 2009, 20:11

by **BeachBum** » 03 Mar 2009, 20:27

admin: deleted

Surely the longest single post on this forum, mind you this is turning into the longest thread on the forum.

admin: Then perhaps use a bit of common sense when replying? Why the need to quote "the longest single post on this forum" in entirety? Quoted text deleted.

by **Pal of Porty** » 03 Mar 2009, 20:42

by **wangi** » 04 Mar 2009, 00:28

admin: subsequent posts replying with quoted text in entirety have been removed... Plus a lone sane reply to them...

by **Porty** » 04 Mar 2009, 16:23

An interesting and informative letter relating to a new school. Built on common good land in Peebles. Gives an insight into what sort of money would be involved to rent a 10 acre site from a common good fund.

At the exec meeting on Dec 18th 2008 Edinburgh Council voted against an amendment to compensate its common good fund for the use of part of Portobello Park to build our new school. Had they not done so we could have been talking a mighty £6,000 per annum accounting adjustment.

It kind of puts PPAG's supposed challenge to the councils QC's opinion in perspective. There is no basis for a challenge but if by some miracle they did manage to secure a judgment that meant the council would have to pay compensation then £6k a year is what's at stake. No wonder COEC don't feel its neccessary to go to court for permission.

by **Pal of Porty** » 04 Mar 2009, 16:36

Even at £6,000 would it not just be an accounting balancing act anyway?

by **Porty** » 04 Mar 2009, 17:29

by **seanie** » 04 Mar 2009, 18:05

by **seashell** » 05 Mar 2009, 11:44

by **Porty** » 05 Mar 2009, 11:49

by **seashell** » 05 Mar 2009, 11:50

by **seanie** » 05 Mar 2009, 12:05

by **seashell** » 05 Mar 2009, 12:44

New Portobello High School - on going issues

Who is online