NigelR,
If a public written statement, like the above, setting out clearly the PFAs formal policy for all to see, had been made some time ago, then I strongly suspect that there would be a lot more support for the PFA management and also that one or two members might still be with the PFA. A number of people in the BMAA would perhaps also be feeling somewhat less threatened.
Clearly this doesn't undo what has already been said and done (much of which was precise and true at the time that it was written), and it's also clear from other correspondence that the PFA EC is less than united in it's views on this.
Can we please have an assurance that PFA management take more care in what they say in future and also that the EC work towards healing the rift that has caused one or two of their number to seek to cause mischief by delighting in reporting the CEOs, perhaps unguarded and unnofficial, comments to others.
Perhaps an assurance that clearly marked private correspondence (you know precisely what I mean here) doesn't get forwarded or copied to others might help as well, as it does little to enhance the reputation of those who indulge in it and reflects badly on the association they work within.
As a final point, I have no interest whatsever in the George Adams affair, and have refrained from commenting on it, yet have been reported elsewhere as being one of those baying for the PFAs blood over this. This is untrue, as anyone who reads my old posts will be able to deduce fairly quickly. I'd appreciate it if you cleared up this misapprehension with your CEO as he clearly thinks otherwise. Clearly the way that this was handled may also be a source for learning from experience for the PFA, as it does seem to have been somewhat badly managed from the perspective of a bystander.
May your PFA recover from this and get back to it's former self.