I have seen some real C**p on these forums in the past but your post takes first prize for.................. shall we say misrepresentation.
So far we have seen a rant from some one who will not produce any evidence to support his allegations of LAA malpractice.
Well was it crap? I was just trying to get the LAA's role straight in my mind (not being a member) and so far no one has said that what I wrote was incorrect and why? Is what I wrote correct or have I got my assumptions wrong? Please clarify as you are in a much better position to put me straight being an LAA Member / Inspector.
As for "Malpractice"...I don't think the original poster mentioned "malpractice" but was just questioning the actions of a CEO of a Ltd company of which he is a share holder. Isn't that justified? But no one has actually provided a reasonable explanation to him as far as I can see, lots of ranting and raving and twisting of words as usual. I am sure that the CEO can give a reasonable excuse or explanation. I personally think that CEO's of large organisations should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they are "value for money" and get then job done.