Originally Posted by
gasax
There is a staggering posting on the LAA - David Mole's motion is because he thinks that is what she wants!!!!
Well who would have guessed! Quite why the legal advisor would recommend this to the membership remains cloaked. The seconder of the Stewart Jackson, works for Boeing. TCT's major sponsor was - yep Boeing.
So is this what the LAA committee are running scared of? How about a little honesty?
I have just read through those and have written a lengthy post which I may or may not publish here, there re one or two points I need to check first.
But does anyone else find this rather odd. From TCT's supporting statement.
Having requested the information this year from the LAA, I now know that from early 2016 the Board received a succession of emails demanding my public disgrace. The sources were evidently the same as those of the ongoing PPruNe campaign; some of them joined our Association
Yet information highly pertinent to making a reasoned judgement on how to vote and why you will vote that way is not being given to the association members. To some extent I can see where Mr Mole is coming from but I fear he is missing the point.
All the members know is that TCT has threatened legal action/ made legal threats (however it is worded). Without knowing what those threats are means that the members unable to make a decision on how best to respond and protect the LAA.
Let me use the following examples to express my point.
Example 1: " Get my award back or I will sue you for £750,000 damages".
Example 2: " Get my award back or I will resign my LAA membership and seek legal advice to get reimbursement of my membership fees".
Both of these in the blind would be classed as threats of legal action against the LAA. However, how the members would vote in either example would be vastly different.
............................
Separate thought. I think that real caution is warranted on how this mess is resolved. On several occasions TCT has threatened legal action but this has come to nothing. The reason being that there is a stack of evidence out there, compiled over the past 4 years or so, which shows "our" side of the argument and she has not shown anything to back her claims. She cannot claim to have never misled anyone when there is ample written, audio, and video evidence to counter such a claim.
However, if she is given the award back then she has an ace to play; she can genuinely claim that she was right and "we" were wrong (on this point only) but that might be enough for her to seriously consider seeking redress. This could be a substantial financial claim: In the first instance that claim would be against the LAA.