|
If both motions failed I guess the decent thing now is she resigns from the LAA? She made some pretty awful allegations against the organisation and clearly her type of aviation is far removed from that of the various grass root struts. |
Originally Posted by Mike Flynn
(Post 10288632)
If both motions failed I guess the decent thing now is she resigns from the LAA? She made some pretty awful allegations against the organisation and clearly her type of aviation is far removed from that of the various grass root struts. |
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. |
So only about 5% voted?? |
If I may be permitted to impose on Pilot Dar’s tolerance: Throughout this miserable saga, I have tried to concentrate on getting to the facts so that people can make judgements based on them. Despite my and others’ best endeavours, Ms Curtis-Taylor has consistently refused properly to address the questions put to her. Instead, right before the LAA AGM, she has contrived to get her argument into the national press, still without actually properly answering any of the questions, but simply “playing the man and not the ball” by slagging off the entire membership of the LAA. In doing that she has brought the LAA into disrepute and, IMHO, if she doesn’t now do the decent thing and resign, she should be drummed out in disgrace. Pilot Dar: I hope you will tolerate this post because I don’t think it does more than reflect both the reality of the situation as well as the views of many posters to these threads. Thanks! My £.02. |
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? |
Originally Posted by Nige321
(Post 10288714)
So only about 5% voted?? 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.
|
Originally Posted by HolyMoley
(Post 10288762)
Clearly, many people only voted on one of the motions.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 12:03. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.