Hold on, there is no 'subtext' to any of my posts whatsoever, and I am going to get very angry at any suggestion otherwise. As Paul says I am a man of integrity, I don't play games, I play everything with a straight bat and if anyone is going to suggest or infer otherwise then I'd politely advise them to be very careful. I've made it absolutely clear that I won't comment upon anything to do with the Chiswick Roundabout site because I do have a professional association with Kim Gottlieb, but I am not currently (as I have been in the past) professionally involved in any capacity on that site.  I did however go along to the exhibition out of curiosity, and whilst I have views about both the proposal and the exhibition itself I'll keep those to myself. I've consistently criticised the Empire House legal action on this forum.  Not because I'm in favour or against the proposal, but because in my view it was a complete waste of money and it didn't have a leg to stand on.  A judge has effectively confirmed that view. FWIW I didn't have any issue with the reporting of the Chiswick Roundabout scheme, indeed to be honest I thought it was bloody stupid of the developers to release so little information prior to the exhibition because that was bound to start any consultation/dialogue off on a bad foot. I spelt it out right from the start of this thread - I simply think it is poor journalism when a story is released which has at its heart a report which one needs to see in order to be able to reach their own view/conclusion, but that report is absent yet the article is dominated by criticism of that report and a request to give money to challenge that report. As it happens the subject matter is planning, but as I made clear it was the principle I have an issue with, not the subject - if the article had been about a charity seeking funding and citing a specific article or such like, I'd want to see that article.  Hardly unreasonable ?. And for the last time will some of you get in into your heads that I do not exclusively work for developers.  Like most planning consultants I work for developers, I work for objectors, I work for resident groups, I sometimes work (still) as a Case Officer for Local Authorities, so I have a very well rounded perspective and experience and I do not favour one over the other. Sorry to get abit stroppy but I'm sick of these people who've never met me making all kind of ridiculous claims about my motivations for posting.

Entire Thread

Topic	Date Posted	Posted By
Empire House	28/10/15 15:23:00	Adam Beamish
Re:Empire House	28/10/15 19:30:00	Carl Wynne
Re:Re:Empire House	28/10/15 22:03:00	Adam Beamish
Re:Empire House	28/10/15 22:02:00	Simon Kverndal
Re:Re:Empire House	28/10/15 22:07:00	Adam Beamish
Re:Re:Empire House	28/10/15 22:23:00	Carl Wynne
Re:Re:Re:Empire House	28/10/15 22:35:00	Adam Beamish
Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 00:24:00	Basil Finnis
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 00:53:00	Robert Fish
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 07:58:00	Paul Corcoran
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 09:23:00	Adam Beamish
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 09:45:00	Loraine Pemberton
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 11:07:00	Adam Beamish
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 11:10:00	Carl Wynne
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 11:45:00	Loraine Pemberton
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 11:09:00	Francis Rowe
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 11:38:00	Paul Corcoran
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 12:06:00	Adam Beamish
Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 09:21:00	James Holmes-Siedle
Re:Empire House	29/10/15 10:07:00	Jason Maddocks
Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 10:17:00	Carl Wynne
Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 10:31:00	Adam Beamish
Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 12:34:00	Jason Maddocks
Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Empire House	29/10/15 13:13:00	Richard Greenhough

Forum Home