Chris, the point I’m trying to make with my suggestion is that it puts Ms Curtis-Taylor and her team on the spot and nails them to answering specific factual questions rather than arguing that it’s all “a witch hunt”.
I think it is important that those who would deny her the award, if that is justified, should do so on the basis of fact and from the moral high ground. At the moment, the weight of argument as expressed in this thread is overwhelmingly critical of her attitude, behaviour and personality rather than seeking answers to the specific factual assertions that form the questions that lie at the heart of this issue, but to which she still provides no answer.
As I said in my earlier post: it is easy for her to hide behind the huge volume of posts that don’t pursue the facts.
My suggestion was intended to reverse that and focus a bright and direct light on those factual issues and ensure that they are the main basis for the decision because you can’t really bullish!t the answers to them: they are, as it says on the tin, matters of fact.
If we do as I suggest, they have three choices:
1. They answer the questions and convince the meeting that they are right.
In that case they deserve the award and it should be returned.
Of course they might use this channel to present what I believe are called “alternative facts” and people can judge them on those once they have stopped laughing.
2. They apologise for having “unintentionally” misled everyone and accept that the award won’t be returned.
In that case, they don’t get the award back, but at least they regain some respect from those of us who are big enough to accept such an apology and move on (I certainly would be happy to do that!).
3. They don’t reply.
In that case, the meeting should draw its own conclusions. For me, failing to reply either demonstrates a contempt for the LAA or is a tacit admission that the allegations are correct. In either case the award would not be returned and any press reaction would be countered by a simple response setting out what was done and why, together with the fact that they ignored it.
That focusses the attention clearly on the facts of the case and is more likely to end up with a just outcome than the alternative which is to go into the meeting with the thread unchanged, have her claim that she is being trolled citing the myriad posts here, many of which are ad hominem attacks, and give her a great screen behind which she can hide.
It also avoids any negative press reaction as they can hardly play the injured party if they have been given the chance to respond and have spurned it.
I’ll close this post with a request that those supporting the idea say so, or if people don’t support it say that and say why. I’d also be grateful for a “sign from above” if starting another thread in this saga along the lines I suggest would be acceptable to the Mods and if they are happy to police it as I originally suggested.