systems
Now, as you might have seen, I have complained gently about a few things 'core PFA', I was as stated by an EC member treated very badly, and there are still some appaling people on EC, BUT;
In defence of the PFA in the wider sense, the EC or management don't 'choose' to expell a member themselves. But, if a complaint is received they will investigate it and react accordingly. IE THey most certainly dont go looking for members to expel for their own reasons.
During my stint on EC I remember one of the two parties in this case complaining about the other with 'pretty loose facts'. Several letters were written asking for more information and hard evidence which up until my resignation were not even replied to. THerefore whatever the background nothing can be done - heresay is just not adequate.
To back up Nigels remark, that the ensuing court case found a particular result is nothing to do with what the PFA decide regarding its reputation and safety and whether to 'keep' an inspector, or an ordinary member. THere are many things I could do and say that would cause my suspension or expulsion, but they would never become courtroom material in a million years.
Also a significant factor in how these issues are dealt with is again the structure of PFA. Issues such as these are dealt with between management and EC. EC meet every two months, so fast turnrounds in the common proffesional sense are simply not possible. The current constitution does not allow it, that is the doing of the membership as a whole and not the current managment teams fault in any way. THere have been several attempts to change the consitution but those with over active imaginations usually force a stalemate at AGM - so we are still stuck.
As someone that has been in deeper with PFA than many, the constitution is the single most debilitating factor in all things PFA. Change it and much can be solved quite easily.
However the right people must be at the top, and they currently are not.
Regards,
Timbo