Old 5th Oct 2018, 16:25
  #113 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: DORSET
Age: 62
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by hoodie View Post
rog747, that's not so much an inappropriate post as a major misreading of the situation.

The Motions are on the table simply because the LAA constitution says that any Member may propose a Motion and so long as it is in accordance with the Articles then it will put to the membership.

The LAA would worthy of criticism if they did not allow a properly constituted Motion to be heard. The fact that the Motions have been tabled is a positive indication of the democratic nature of the LAA, not an indication that they have somehow been cowed.

Also, if you read the material on the LAA website carefully you will see that it was not TCT who "deemed some part of the LAA's past comment as libellous" leading to "the LAA agreeing to Motion to have the comment removed" - that didn't happen at all.

What happened was that the LAA deemed an element of the 2016 Motion to be libellous (against TCT, presumably) and it was agreed by the LAA Board to delete that element and inform the proposer that had been done.

There is enough misinformation already flying around about all this that we should all carefully read the statements made by all involved and represent them properly in these discussions.

Thank you very much - It is a hugely complex situation - I've removed it.
rog747 is offline