l'm pleased that we are starting to hear from those who want to share another side of the story, and their opinions. We may not agree with what they write, but it may encourage more of the believers to look at and consider the evidence.
b. At the AGM itself there was a broadly-based lack of knowledge among members present about this motion, the fact that I had made any previous public statements, or the fact that proxy votes had already been cast. It was suggested to the Chairman of the meeting (LAA Chairman, Brian Davies) that in the circumstances the motion should be held over to another meeting to allow a full discussion – but this was refused. At the meeting, members expressed their discomfort and that an injustice was being carried out. Of the members actually present at the meeting (about 70), the overwhelming majority voted against the motion or abstained, but the motion was nevertheless carried by the proxy votes previously cast.
When I first read this thread, I also thought that maybe the case was being over-stated, and that maybe TCT had genuinely been misunderstood. It did not take very much in the way of background reading to come to the opposite conclusion.
I would suggest that had the voting members at the meeting who had a "broadly-based lack of knowledge.......about this motion" been aware of the "case for the motion to rescind", rather than just the, no doubt eloquently expressed but evasive "case against", then the vote would have been even more overwhelmingly for the motion.
(And for those supporters who will no doubt say that the proxy voters did not have a chance to hear the defence, it is out there on her media streams, and has failed to convince).