Cows, I must agree with you, that the LAA should not have been dragged into this.

In a better world, the Board of the LAA would have removed her from the scene, in terms of the award and membership, once the deception was obvious, without a need for the 2016 vote and publicity

But we are where we are, and we can't go back 4 months and not have the motions that are to be voted on tomorrow.

I think there might be a lot of support in the membership for a position of; Let her do and say what she likes, fool those who can be fooled and carry on with her... whatever it might be called, just don't involve the LAA in any of it.

I'm a firm believer in ignoring letters from Lawyers. A letter from the court is of course different, but unless someone starts a case and I get a citation or a summons, I don't actually care. A few years ago I received correspondence from a firm of solicitors who seemed outraged that I refused to engage counsel to represent me in a land dispute where the other guy had instructed some expensive brief, who obviously felt entitled to deal with someone else from his profession. In the end not only was I right all along, and the claimant deserted the case, poorer for having had to pay his legal costs, but his personal relationship suffered and he had to leave the country, as his other half had been named in the suit, but she had never wanted involved from day one.

As for "Reserving the right to take this to court." That's a load of Lawyer bollocks.

The LAA might well have ignored all "legal" correspondence, as the matter was settled when she was awarded the Trophy. When a motion was put to rescind it, the LAA, bound by their own procedures, took a vote.

Now the LAA seems to have allowed what is clearly a vexatious attempt to disrupt the position that vote at the 2016 AGM established as the will of the Membership. When faced with her making statements to the BBC, such as "I have never made false assertions about the nature of my flights." anyone in aviation should be able to see which side of the line her name needs to be on. Clearly she is not alone, in needing to be removed from the playing field, to allow the important business of ensuring that recreational aviation is affordably available to the man (and woman) in the street.

I am sure that by this time tomorrow we will still not have heard the last of this, until either an EGM or next year's AGM has a motion for the LAA to never have anything to do with her, full stop. Otherwise we can expect her camp to submit the current two motions again every year until they "win" or see sense.

Bird in a Biplane, Chick's Away... there seems to be some confusion about this misogyny... :rolleyes:

Whilst we are about it, please may we have the gender split for the membership of the LAA.....

T C--T:


Steve Slater:


More 'facts' from the desperate, deluded, lying Bird then!

How on Earth can the average (assumed to be mean) age be under 60, whilst she claims in the national media that between 80-90% are over 60? Only the most highly skewed membership age profile could possibly fit with her nonsense. 90% of the 7,746 members is 6,971 members having to be over 60 years old - which I would very much doubt, and even then, there would have to be a big creche full new-born babies in the membership to skew the data to bring a average down to below 60 just to fit with her blatant lies. Oddly, I only hear one crying baby in the membership!

Now must surely be the time to eject her from the LAA, as this is the most blatant lie directly dragging the LAA's name and membership profile into doubt, IN THE NATIONAL PRESS, by telling complete lies just to suit her selfish, greedy agenda. Today's gathering at Sywell offers the perfect opportunity.

This Bird's incessant twittering has spun completely out of control, and all the evidence indicates that she needs some serious psychiatric counselling and professional help for her problems. Why wasn't someone who cares about her welfare able to convince her to just shut her mouth and walk quietly away with any tiny shreds of dignity she might possibly have left?

All the evidence is that the Bird is so 'high and mighty' that it doesn't listen to anyone or to any advice. It is very obviously set on a path to total self-destruction at very high speed. It is a pity that the LAA amongst other reputable organisations have allowed themselves to be seriously tarnished and embarrassed in the process, through not showing sufficient strength to resist the threats, hype, bewitching bluster and lies quickly enough, at every opportunity that presented itself.

What will be the total cost of damage to all parties when this all farrago of nonsense stirred up by the ego of just one Bird finally comes home to roost?

If gender should not be a factor, why should age?

Well officially the AGM should now be finished, any news of the voting results ?

Motion failed

One motion or both ?







.

LAA forum post says both motions failed.

Those vile mysoganists at it again...:E

We should have a celebratory cup of tea. Put the kettle on luv.



:}

My rivet popping rate just doubled - I hope someone buys Sam a drink tonight, he deserves it, for playing a straight bat.

The truth will always come out .

Reactions to the vote outcome may be discussed, but gloating is not welcomed. We'll leave this thread open for discussion relative to the AGM outcome, as long as posts are on topic, and the topic warrants new discussion.

Pilot DAR................

Please do not lock either thread. We need to keep the topic open and discussed. Interested to hear folks view on the future of the LAA, an important organisation to private flying in UK (and maybe further afield).

Resignation has also been suggested on the LAA forum.

If anyone has the voting breakdown may I ask they post the information here please. It is important to see the scores on the doors.
Ta.

Results.

Motion One: For 82, Against 389

Motion Two: For 202, Against 277


thanks to Andy mac on LAA forum

Motion One: 82 for, 389 against
Motion Two: 202 for, 277 against.
Sadly no motion to strip her of membership.

Her Twitter account is surprisingly quiet. But I suspect we haven't heard the last of this. Well done to the committee and the Turweston staff. The committee for doing their damnedest to solve the situation and the Turweston staff for the way they handled all the extra work this caused and the continuous media intrusion.

I await her next assault on the good name of the LAA and the membership with interest.

SND

And I see SWB has beaten me to it!

What was the motions again? I did try to find in the thread but can't.

Motion 1 by Stewart Jackson titled:

The Annual General Meeting acknowledges that its resolution of October 2016 to rescind the award of the Woodhams Trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor was unjustified and inappropriate to the values of the Light Aircraft Association.

Motion 2 by David Mole titled:

That the Woodhams Trophy awarded to Tracey Curtis-Taylor in 2014 be reinstated.


Let's hope this is the end of it all.

thanks

I suspect it won't be, it seems to be a trend to try and repeat votes until the opposition have lost the will to live and you get what you want.

I too am not a member of the LAA, so just an observer of this saga. It seems like the membership has spoken, and within their right, and duty to do. In light of those who opine that Tracey should no longer be a member of the LAA, I ask myself, does her recent conduct put her in "good standing" as a member? Sure, she's untitled to hold a differing and perhaps unpopular viewpoint, but does there come a point where asserting that differing viewpoint, and allowing a fear of legal action against the association over it, go beyond "good standing"? It is an association, and membership does impose the expectation that each member acts as in the common interest of the association as a whole - to maintain their "good standing".

Edit to add, I'm pleased that the motions were repeated here, I was uncertain of their wording too.

I can't believe that everyone voted the wrong way.

has no one learned anything from Brexit?

Maybe so Nige, but what % of the LAA membership gave the award in the first place?

How many are on the awards committee. You can't have it both ways with 0.001% giving an award, only to be upset when 5% take it away.

(ps I made up the 0.001% as it is an unknown % until I have the facts and use it to highlight my argument)

I believe the voting turnout this time was about 3 times higher than in 2016.

Even though the Postal/Proxy votes outweighed the attendees votes which were fairly equal on the motion to reinstate the award, Tracey did herself no favours when her statement was all about the board and old men in an association having an agenda against her.
If only she hadn't continued ad nauseam about mysoginy, old boys club, ex military old men, anti women, in the media, maybe she would have had a chance to regain the award.
Sorry Tracey, but that's one of my reasons for voting against the motion.
Please let it go now.

Alan

Clearly, many people only voted on one of the motions. Otherwise a large number of people believe that the membership were justified to rescind the award, but think she should have it back anyway.

Both motions were rejected HM. There were some abstentions too. How could the award be given back without another motion next year..............................OK.......OK ........I'm kidding. Honestly:p

Jonzarno, agreed.
worth noting that TCT voted in favour of both motions. If she had been a gentleman (!), she would have abstained!

I hope the Navy will now take notice and conclude that TCT's behaviour leading to this vote has brought her into sufficient disrepute that she is no longer fit to wear their uniform.

https://forums.flyer.co.uk/images/sm...eusa_think.gif If my arithmetic is correct 479 people voted on the first motion, compared with 471 on the second, so I'd say that it's fairly likely that the same people voted on both motions...