For goodness sake, Lou, get a life.
You seem to be criticising the way that airrage MAKES his points, rather than the points themselves. In any decent debating society or courtroom, your comments would be disbarred, and you would be requested to address the point at issue.
You seem to disagree with airrage, but be unable to offer any cogent or logical argument to enhance your own viewpoint and counter his. This is a childish method - shout down those you disagree with, doesn't matter what you say as long as it scores points.
Let's get back on track:
1. CD is up for re-election. Merv supports him, as he is entitled to.
2. Merv uses BALPA resources to advertise his support of CD. This is considered marginally quasi legal by some, but then the legal advice, (funnily enough, employed by Merv and CD) says it is actually OK after all. Merv then uses more BALPA resources to tell us all. (I await Merv's re-election with great interest; I think he has single handedly increased membership interest in ALL elections
3. We all have to make our own minds up about whether CD is deserving of re-election. I DO think it suspect of anyone who allows their own salary to accelerate proportionately above those whose interests he is supposed to represent. This is more like a management practice than anything else.
4. And finally, the carefully suppressed manner in which the re-election was announced is enough to make me very suspicious. It stinks of pre-1980 Labour Party practice, smoke filled rooms, Tammany Hall politics and all that. It wouldn't matter if MY salary had increased at the same rate as CD's, but the opposite has happened.
As someone mentioned earlier though - when am I supposed to get my ballot paper?
I hope Lou will now not criticise ME for daring to use more than two sentences.
Roger Out!