Au contraire Mister Rutherford, it is you that has initiated and sustained this affair and you do protest too much, methinks - it can be alleged that you appear to have motives that transcend the 'search for truth' and that there is much more to this than meets the eye. It is alleged that you have, I am reliably informed, lobbied people with the most intense, ad hominem personal attacks if they do not accede to everything you want, and you have, it seems to me, sustained this thing far beyond what is reasonable, such that is has descended into a level of personal vilification that I am sure I am not alone in being uncomfortable with. You are not a disinterested, impartial observer in this affair, and there is something about your conduct that could be alleged to not ring true in all of this. I would add, anyone who has had the professional misfortune to have to listen to two ex-spouses disagree about absolutely anything will say that objectivity is the last thing you are going to get, from EITHER party. It's a new low that this forum has sunk to this kind of thing.
The LAA are offering a way to draw this to a close. People should take it. There is a valid counter argument that justice was not served at the original meeting in a variety of ways for the reasons set out in the current AGM paperwork. The awards committee, you and others are effectively saying, did not do their due diligence - they can't have done or the award should never, you say, have been made. They should all then, as a starter, have resigned the moment the vote was taken as it was. The senior management of the LAA should have resigned subsequently as well over such a badly handled process. There are statements in the paperwork that also make that clear, and indeed a poster above calls for this.
There is a further reform that needs to happen then: the LAA must be stripped of its role as a regulator of light aviation. People MUST belong to it if they operate at a certain level of aircraft ownership as the LAA has taken over from the CAA in that sector. This makes such an award have a significance it ought not to have when you are meant to be dealing with an impartial regulator. Either the LAA is a membership body that can make awards, counsel, advise and warn, or it is a regulator. It ought not to be both. It is standing into danger here. Arguably, the CAA as the Government appointed aviation regulatory body should be adequately resourced to review and license all aviation in the UK: an impartial body, open to advice and input from all - the LAA, the BGA, AOPA etc etc., but this is no longer the case. I for one do not want to belong to an organisation that perpetuates such a woeful saga, and yet I HAVE TO if I am to fly a certain category of aeroplane.A potential outcome from this endless process would be a demand that people not be shackled to a body that is both 'de jure' regulator and a selector of individuals for recognition, and that reform of the LAA itself is needed.
The LAA want this to stop. What might be called 'The Rutherford Route' is a near guarantee, it seems to me, that it wont. The LAA have offered a way to end this and people might like to consider taking it. Enough is enough.