That is a possibility. It is interesting to note that the registered address was transferred to Companies House.
Manchester Zoo Manchester zoo
- Thread starter Dianamonkey
- Start date
That is a possibility. It is interesting to note that the registered address was transferred to Companies House.
Pootle
Well-Known Member
Why's that?
I am no expert on company law (though I have been a company director in the past, before these rules were introduced) but my understanding is that it's a procedure normally used where there is a dispute over whether the company has the right to use the address it gives as its registered address.
I don't know if something like this has happened in the case of the Manchester Zoo company but it may be relevant.
Looks like bas news for the Manchester zoo
Place North West | Manchester Zoo scheme dead in the water
Place North West | Manchester Zoo scheme dead in the water
To put it bluntly, the article's a load of nonsense.
Last edited:
Yes, stopped reading after the first line: A project to create a 100-acre near Hopwood Hall in Rochdale has hit the buffers because the man behind the plans, Johnpaul Houston, cannot be tracked down.
He hasn’t paid his consultancy fees owed for over 14months - this isn’t an issue about the viability of the project, it’s because the company owes money and JP has been avoiding those he owes money to.
I was not so much referring to the phrasing of the sentence, though that is also a little off, but rather to the '100-acre near Hopwood Hall' part.
So which parts are "nonsense"?
The parts about him being uncontactable?
The consultants pursuing him for payment?
In light of the recent report that Houston is "uncontactable" it would appear that my posting (above) was indeed on to something.
It would appear that the address registered for the company is no longer one at which the Sole Director can be contacted and therefore the company address is now Companies House.
Of course, it may be that other posters on here have more information.
Maybe that's why one poster said the article was nonsense...
It would be helpful if he would explain why it's "nonsense".
There is a direct quote from Barton Willmore, a respected planning consultancy with a £35M annual turnover, that bills haven't been paid and that they are unable to contact their client. Is that "nonsense"?
A statement from the zoo outlining the fantastic work they've been doing over the last year:
Log into Facebook
Log into Facebook
That doesnt explain why the articke is nonsense? Or why Houston has disappeated from social media?
It’s a Facebook post about their activities over the past year? Not sure what you are hoping for from them (or Thomas).
Edit: also, who are you to suggest that an individual does not have the right to remove themselves from social media should they choose? People do it all the time and that is not treated as suspicious.
Did I suggest that they had no right to remove themself? Or did I merely observe that they had done so?
Last edited by a moderator:
You were asking for an explanation as to why an individual has deactivated their personal social media account. That bears no relevance to the link posted.
Last edited by a moderator:
And your response here bears no relevance to your original reply.
And in fact, if an organisation is posting about its activities yet its leader has removed himself from the same forum, actually there is justification for questioning that. Especially if he is probably the person who posted on the organisations page. And especially if there are rumours circulating. Hardly does a lot to assuage these rumours, I would have hoped for some cimmunique to explain the rumours or reassure fans about the article. People need to realise that large numbers of thw zoo community have supported this development of Manchester zoo to friends colleagues professional bodies and family, and been excited about it, and now feel a bit let down
I think it is a fair bit more relevant than the tangent you are taking this thread on...
Not really...a personal account is just that. I think people are reading far too much into this.
Is he probably that person? Manchester Zoo does have other employees.
So publicly accessible comments from well-respected members of the zoo community in response to the article (e.g. when shared via Zoo News Digest) do not reassure you that Manchester Zoo is forging ahead with its plans, and operating normally? I think the update on a year's worth of activity should help people feel the opposite of let down.