Statement clarification re. untruths

Hi - this is a post I put onto Saving Swindon's Heritage FB group under my own name, today after reading yet more untruths. I share it here for clarity. Thanks, Ana Kelly *********************** I am really sorry to those who really do not need to keep reading such stuff on this page, but please forgive my need to make some points clear. To reiterate facts and why I am no longer engaging with people who continue to peddle untruths and question my and the petition’s basic honesty are: - The petition very definitely WAS for the Carriage Works with the MI being a visitor centre /associated space. I KNOW, I wrote it. - This petition does now make reference now to the MI plans and Forward Swindon Plans. These were edited in as soon as I read the proposals from both groups. I openly acknowledged as editing them in, with updates to signers very early on – those not happy with this were given details how to leave the petition – only one or two did, despite the lie that I had misled lots of unhappy signers. It seemed sensible to do this as it seems sensible to try to work with interested groups – NOT a concept some seems to understand. - Personally I took issue with false and repeated claims of ‘attacks’ made and witnessed. I have sought to listen to all and be polite. - The HLF bid invited from the MIT was in process, and does already contain conflicting overlaps with the SMAG bid. One would adversely affect the other. This could well have implications for what is planned for the CW too. The groups need to work together – and the HLF bids not put forward until this is done. - Nobody should be making assertions about the HLF attitudes before Robert Buckland gets back to us as promised from the summit meeting. - There are now concerted claims that the petition supporters are slandering the SMAG people, which again is ridiculous for the same reasons as above. I have personal friends in the SMAG group and although I feel their attitude about what will happen in Swindon overly rosy, I do NOT think they are heritage destroyers. The argument was always that the long-term focus of up to 50 years on a new-build area will draw the much-needed immediate attention in the future from areas that are at risk and or dilapidated. - Anyone looking at the Carriage Works photos cannot dispute they look dilapidated, so continually asserting they are not at risk of falling down is a red herring. - I have never claimed the CW plans were any more than outline. To expect more would be ridiculous considering the un-consulted headstart given to the SMAG plans. Yet there have been positive past architect assessments as it to its suitability and other examples of similar uses made. I have no problem with hearing other opinions but have no wish to hear untruths which seem just part of a deliberate antagonism. I have been honest and open in this petition quest, and will remain so.