Originally Posted by
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY
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.
Why should they be treated vastly differently? As far as I can see, in both your hypothetical examples, they would both be threats - indeed blackmail - which would both be construed to have the clear sole intention to reverse an action voted upon by the members of the LAA, for compelling reasons to them at the time.
The only difference would be the sum involved in the threat. As no legal action appears to have been initiated on its own merits (and everyone needs to ask the very serious question "why not"?), adding the threats doesn't seem the best way to win the hearts and support of a group of voters.
Ask yourself the questions:
a) is it likely the LAA feels threatened by the threat of being sued, and should voting LAA members feel threatened to vote in her favour just to appease her whims?
b) if she resigns her LAA, who would be bothered in the slightest?
Neither threat would be in the least bit tempting to the average, intelligent, principled LAA member.