The discussion here greatly affects the LAA.
Derek lamb has posted on the LAA forum, I cannot reply there but I can do so here.
In amongst the strong feelings on the forum I think there should be room for an alternative view. Our association is dedicated to recreational flying. Flying for fun and sport. Mixing with people who share our love of flying. To hold something like this together we have to make sure everyone is treated fairly in the best sporting tradition. Yet all members ultimately know that Tracey Curtis-Taylor, a long-standing member, wasn’t treated fairly and we need to look at that.
Do they know that? An assumption that is not borne out by the feelings expressed so far.
Two years ago we didn’t quite appreciate how a targeted internet campaign could destroy a person’s reputation, doing damage way beyond any claimed misdemeanour. When you’re in the cross-hairs of a nasty online campaign waged by a small number of people with an objective of causing damage there is no way out, no-one to appeal to for a just hearing.
Plenty of opportunity to answer genuine questions but all we have seen is diversion/deflection/obfuscation. Targeted internet campaign, of course targeted as TCT was the one who kept up the lies. Two years ago you had not heard her say SOLO. I found the damning Herne Bay video after the LAA vote! It would have been nice to have done so beforehand.
So how did this all come about? Four years ago in 2014 the Awards group decided to award the Woodhams Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor. Like other awards over the years it wasn’t contentious and attracted no further attention for nearly a year and a half. Then a nasty and vicious campaign started against her on the internet forums. David Mole in his motion says there was apparently a serious falling out between her and her support, but that cannot be our concern. Why did the allegations take so long to surface? And why were they relevant since they weren’t the basis for the award? Who knows, but it culminated in a member’s motion for the 2016 AGM. The upshot was the motion on the proxy voting form posted with the magazine for reconsideration and rescinding of the award for bringing the LAA into disrepute. No evidence whatsoever was presented, and Tracey was given no opportunity to defend herself to proxy voters.
Wrong Derek, this all came about when TCT / BiaB tried to promote a solo flight of great achievement. When the solo aspect could not continue yet was still promoted, advertised and awards accepted on that premise those of us with an ounce of integrity felt something needed to be done. Long before the LAA AGM. Also, we poundstretcher-shopping-internet-trolling-proles did not resurrect this. TCT did with the "woe-is-me" piece in the Times, you know the one, it had a link to the upcoming film at the end of it! TCT started this off again, not us.
At the AGM members listened to Barry Tempest present his motion, Harry Hopkins as Awards chair explained the reasoning of his group and their investigation of the allegations. He recommended voting against it, and Tracey had the opportunity to defend herself. The members present voted overwhelmingly for her. But it had already been decided by the weight of proxy voters who had heard none of the arguments or evidence. Fewer than 100 members attend the AGM on average and in addition there are usually around 40-50 proxy votes. In 2016 the votes of the attendees were swamped by nearly treble the usual number of proxy votes. That guaranteed that the votes of those present were irrelevant. There was uproar on the floor when the result was announced, shouts of Disgraceful! and a large number of members got up and walked out.
What evidence did TCT really give? As mentioned, the Herne Bay video showed her repeating twice the SOLO claim. But as I said in an earlier post it wasn’t just about the solo aspect. It was all the other mis-truths and lies by omission.
They almost certainly thought that what had happened did not meet the LAA’s principle of fairness and justice. And it is probably what drove Tracey to keep plugging away for a review.
The LAA has the ability to punish members who act inappropriately, and in turn is duty-bound to support members against unfair allegations. When there were allegations that Tracey had brought the LAA into disrepute the board could have called her in if they felt there were grounds to it. Those who have said that the matter should have been resolved this way rather than at an AGM vote are absolutely right. Instead she was left to press her defence herself. If she had not been robust in doing it, I am certain the motions for reinstatement would not be going to this year’s AGM.
The way I read it, TCT has brought the LAA into disrepute by raising this again. I still believe the LAA was right the first time and it is a real shame that HCAP didn’t see this too
So now we’re in the situation where we have two motions before the AGM. A Vice President, the Company Secretary and the Chairman all indicate support for reinstatement. The difference between the motions appears to hinge on whether it was mishandled by the board. In my mind there is no question that was the case, and I was a member of it so I need to accept responsibility for its decisions too.
We need to admire Stewart Jackson for acting with his conscience with his motion to redress a wrong and reverse the 2016 motion. It was a very brave thing to do. I too am ashamed of what was done in the LAA’s name. If there’s criticism of the LAA it’s not misplaced. There is no wrong to redress.
It’s time to look at ourselves. Our numbers are declining as the older members die out, and our average age of 60 is increasing by nearly a year every year. We are almost all men. This matter has done our standing serious damage amongst outsiders. It’s no wonder we’re seen as aviation’s old boys club. The next generation is not signing up, and without them we have no future.
Remember it’s a sport. You don’t withdraw an award years after the event based on a nasty online campaign.
There is that phrase again, a nasty online campaign…asking for the truth is wrong is it?
The Awards committee looked closely at allegations and decided there weren’t grounds for withdrawal. It was pushed through by proxy voters who hadn’t heard the arguments. It has damaged our reputation and made us look misogynistic. We need to be generous and fix it by voting for both motions. Even if you normally don’t vote, please do so this year. Our association’s future well-being could just depend on it. Let’s play the game in a way that makes us attractive to young women and men, and encourages them to join us.
Young men and women can see what you reward, is it any wonder that decent people don’t want to join in?
Derek Lamb