RuthI don't think my posting was a personal attack and it certainly wasn't intended as such. I was repeating comments made to me by somebody who was at the SP meeting, which I could not attend. As I am a member of a group which promotes the interests of the community above all else (and for us, remember, those interests stretch well beyond mere financial considerations and embrace the whole question of empowerment) you will probably be able to form of a fairly accurate view of where "market mechanisms" are likely to feature on my list of priorities!As you rightly say, the Community Group was not party to the discussions which led to these proposals being formulated. When they came before us I felt they should be sent to Scrutiny, which is why I opposed your amendment which, if passed, would have meant they were not discussed. I saw the point of your amendment, but remain of the view that I and my colleagues took the correct decision.The proposals are certainly likely to be contentious, however our Group will take a position (or positions!) on them when we are in possession of the full facts. As you will have gathered from the contents of my speech to Borough Council, that is not the case at present.
Phil Andrews ● 5991d