New Portobello High School - PPAG/"Save Porty Park"

[Bob Jefferson]

Change the record. That the best you can do?

[seanie]

PPAG have updated their .

Still lying through their teeth as usual.

[Porty]

Yes. But its very encouraging. Reads like its finally sinking in.

[Pal of Porty]

There should be a law against being able to write material that is factually incorrect to recruit new members and raise money. Different points of view and opinions are obviously welcome and a part of life but a total disregard for facts and truths is scandalous.

[wangi]

The lies are a deliberate two fingerrs to the High school and Towerbank. PPAG got a formal written request to remove some specific lies from their website within 14 days or censure would be sought throughthe community council. The CC, those in charge, resisted putting the item on the agenda, claiming they spoke to the City Council who said it would be inappropriate to discuss PPAG. [admin: paragraph removed]

[rmolehusband]

[Porty]

Wangi- thanks for editing, I apologise. Just because PPAG peddle lies to raise money from people who are deliberately misinformed it doesn't necessarily make them scum.

There is perhaps another reason to apologise. Apparently Ros said PPAG were meeting the next evening and would discuss the letter. She may not have said "AGM". That's the trouble with getting things second hand. However, it is still nowhere near good enough. I don't have the letter here, I may have a copy elsewhere, but, PPAG had that letter for about 6 or 7 weeks. They were given 14 days to respond prior to being reported to the CC. The matter could have been discussed at the October CC meeting but the office bearers would not put it on the agenda. And they tried to keep it off the agenda in November too. Eventually, last saturday, an approach was made to Nick Stroud who agreed to include it . Against the wishes of John Stewart and Diana Cairns who refusing to include it. (Diana is a PPAG ) John allegedly claims he asked the council who said it was inappropriate.

So PPAG had many weeks to respond and by a massive coincidence they happen to be meeting to discuss it the night after the CC meeting. After 7 weeks?? And what's to discuss, the lies are lies. They are obviously in no hurry to remove them and don't have the decency to respond in good time.

[Porty]

[seanie]

[seanie]

Secondly, the existing 7-a-side pitch simply isn't sufficient to meet the curricula needs of the school.

And if the new Boroughmuir does indeed end up with a 7-a-side pitch on the roof, it won't be sufficient to meet the curricula needs of the school.

Which is why pupils will be "bussed to Meggetland".

You would of thought PPAG could maybe have made that connection?

[seanie]

As to the height of the school, when considering site options the assumption was a three storey school with a fourth story element.

And whilst not an absolute necessity, it's obviously better for a school to be fairly central to its catchment and to have good transport links. The problem for Boroughmuir has been the absolute dearth of any viable sites till now. It was identified as the number one priority during the PPP2 prioritisation but wasn't taken forward for that very reason. As it is, whilst it not ideally located, the new site is at least pretty close to the existing one; about 500 yards away. And the other advantage of the new Boroughmuir site is it has the potential for some residential development to help offset the cost of purchase.

[Porty]

Whatever PPAG named their meeting on Tuesday, the outcome is clear. They said they would discuss whether to remove the lies from their website and respond to the letter within 14 days. Meanwhile they updated their website with another pack of lies.

It would not surprise me to learn that PPAG and or the office bearers at PCC are currently "lobbying" the TP administrator to curtail/moderate this discussion. Lies are trumpeted on their website but freedom of speech is not tolerated. They really don't like it.

[Epykat]

[seanie]

Do you not think the "bussed to Meggetland" might drop the hint that a single 7-a-side pitch is indeed insufficient to meet the curricula needs of a high school?

[Epykat]

I don't think it's 'hinting' at anything. I think it's stating the fact that the pupils will be 'bussed to Meggetland' - I really think you're clutching at ridicule straws with this one.

[seanie]

OK, we'll take this nice and slow...

The claim that the Council insisted playing fields be adjacent to the site, and by implication couldn't be bussed off site, is false. In order to make more sites potentially viable, the Council compromised with having one all weather pitch, itself insufficient to meet all needs but going a long way towards them. The Council never ruled out bussing PHS pupils off site, although obviously it's not ideal.

PPAG then go on to imply the Council have been inconsistent in saying the existing PHS (7-a-side) pitch is insufficient because they're proposing a (7-a-side) pitch at Boroughmuir. They are indeed.

However, anyone but a cretin could probably work out that the fact that they'll still have to bus pupils off-site pretty much confirms that a 7-a-side pitch is indeed insufficient.

[Epykat]

[seanie]

Still confused then?

[Epykat]

[seanie]

Ah, the

[Epykat]

[seanie]

Well, I can recognise the difference between an open plan design and a non-open plan design.

How are you getting on with that?

[rmolehusband]

What PPAG are in effect saying is that because somewhere else in Edinburgh may* have to put up with a sub-optimal school the children of Portobello should be happy to do the same. Desperate stuff.

* nothing has yet been decided about Boroughmuir.

[Porty]

Thats right. PPAG would happily have the council spend an extra 15 or 20 million pounds on a sub-optimal school on the combined st johns-phs site. A site that was included partly because the council were prepared to compromise on the pitch requirment and continue bussing. They also try to make leverage from the councils ability to purchase a site for boroughmuir. They claim the council stated they had no money to buy a site for porty.im not sure Thats true.

[rmolehusband]

You can imagine the chants from the PPAG rally now....

What do we want? ... A second rate school for the children of Porty!
When do we want it? ... After a pointless last minute legal action!

[wangi]

[rmolehusband]

[Pal of Porty]

Where would you start with that letter! Nice to know that if you represent a group on the PCC, the chair thinks that honesty and integrity are irrelevant. You could not make it up.

[Porty]

[Porty]

[wangi]

To continue that slight tangent - I think it's reasonable that the Portobello Online forums, and Talk Porty as it evolved into, is discussed at Portobello Community council. I'm all for open and transparent discussion. I might not agree with what's being said, but... And there's still an open invite from me to PCC for a Q&A session re Talk Porty...

And it's totally right that members of our community should be able to discuss concerns regarding claims made on PPAG's website at a Portobello Community Council meeting.

[wangi]

[Makaveli]

That is a very good well presented letter.

I try and tell all our friends in the area about what is going on with PPAG and their falsehoods as without the Facebook pages and Talkporty they could be peddling their lies unchecked. If it wasn't for you guys on here I and many others would be oblivious to what is actually going on.

Keep up the good work.

[Porty]

The letter was not circulated amongst PCC members which would have allowed them to decide whether to debate the matter. The chairman refused to circulate on the basis the council thought it inappropriate to have the item on the agenda. The majority of PCC members are likely still in the dark about the integrity of PPAGs fund raising claims.

[Porty]

In his letter to the council the Chairman made much of PCcs supposed neutrality. The implication being that any further discussion on the matter would be going over old ground-PCC had made their minds up.

Yet the month before, at very short notice and without approaching the City Council he granted PPAG a slot on the agenda to put forward their rationale for taking legal action. Its one rule for some and the opposite for others in the neutral environment at PCC.