The post you are reporting:
Howard, the only reason I mentioned Labour is because Alan asked about MacArthur Glen not developing here and gave that reason why they didn't come here.
If I worded it badly, then I apologise, but yes it is about (potential) investor confidence. I am not afraid of DDC transparancy at all, I just think the timing is wrong.
Thanks for your posting Alan. Your posting was:
"That Roger, is a confront to civil liberty. How long do you suggest I wait until it is started? Or is that commercially sensitive?"
Sorry you take that view Alan, it is not intended as an afront to your cvil liberties.
"Why on earth are you so worried about being questioned. For you to accuse me of putting this project in jeopardy is incredible. If you and your colleagues are competent, you will find a public meeting a pleasure. having been involved in major developments, I do have some commercial acumen and have always welcomed information sharing. It is you singly Roger who has become hyper-defensive and increased cynicism is a direct consequence".
I personally am not worried and I know that DDC can answer any questions thrown at them (I remember the meeting Howard mentioned and it was not good for anyone). I have every confidence in the officers ability and involvement in the DTIZ. I am also proud of the small part I have played in the DTZ. I am of course aware of your substantial business acumen Alan. I am not hyper-sensitive, I just don't agree with your approach on this and think the petition will be counter-productive - at this time. I'm also sorry/sad, that it has made you more cynical - of DDC, me, or DTIZ. ?
"Your resolve increases my own. As for Parkridge, 2008/2009 - 120 jobs and a £12m development at Whitfield rejected by Council after recommendations of senior planning officer. Public domain".
This has nothing to do with resolve Alan, it's just my view that's all. Thank you for the information on Parkridge; I don't remember that application, but will look it up.
Roger