|
Look at my location, B&W: I am not in the UK, nor do I fly a G-reg. I do belong to my local counterpart - but haven't ever attended their annual meeting.
|
I struggle to see how explaining to somebody that a members association's democratic decision about an award with no cash value can reasonably be the focus of legal action.
G |
With the caveat that I am not a lawyer:
The LAA have a constitution that allows any member to request a motion to be put to the membership at a public meeting. Such a motion (not initiated by the directors) was properly proposed and voted on according to the articles of association. A further motion has now been put to the membership, which again will be voted on by the membership - the directors have no other action they can take. What would be the case for any action against the Association? |
That has been my question too! So why are the Board getting so upset unless there is something more sinister going on!!!!
|
The Association has been threatened with legal action - see the Chairman's statement. That's why the Board is "upset".
|
Hoodie, I read the Statement but if all was above board then there was nothing to worry or get upset about! What could the legal action be, the motion was read a vote was taken democracy was enacted a result was gained end of story, Lawyers cant interfere with democracy in this country unless there is some law broken!! Unless am I missing something!!
|
S205-18F asks the same question I have... What potential legal action can be worrisome if the association follows it's membership's voting on a motion?
If I were Tracey, I would be mortified at the prospect of being associated with legal action over an award. How embarrassing! How could she ever look at the award with pride, were it to be returned to her!?! |
I do not believe that the awards committee would have given the award had they known at the time it was not solo. They have themselves clarified that they believed it had been solo, and described the situation as a "deception".
I believe that that there must have been somebody more deserving of the award (who had actually done what they said they had done). Having lawyers write multiple threatening letters to both the LAA and individuals in it (whilst falsely describing them as vindictive and mysognistic), in an effort to sell a new film, is not right. The whitewash, spin and lies continue unabated (changing statements, changing wikipedia pages, refusing to answer the difficult questions), and will only get worse if the decision is reversed. 1-6. For. 7. Against. 8. Against. If you want an award/prize/certificate/recognition etc. - you have to have actually done what you said you had done. Anything else is called cheating. |
I’m certainly no lawyer either but I do seem to get the **** sued out of me all the time, so have picked up a few hard earned lessons along the way. I thought to raise a legal action you had to have a quantifiable claim for loses, as there is no cash value in this award the claim would have to be for consequential damages incurred by the allegedly unfair and very public rescinding of the trophy. So I assume TCT could perhaps claim the loss of reputation has impeded her speaking circuit or film earnings potential and as Ewald alluded to in his letter to Sam that this issue has had a ongoing financial impact on his income too. Seems a bit of a stretch to me, but you know what those low rent, ambulance chasing lawyer bastards are like when they get going. |
Originally Posted by 9 lives
(Post 10266662)
How could she ever look at the award with pride, were it to be returned to her!?!
She won’t even be able to do that. As with many such awards they are for a year, on loan if you like. That boat sailed two years ago and it will be on someone else’s mantelpiece instead of hers and Ewald’s. I assume there’ll be a certificate though, to be hung in the downstairs bog. “What? Oh that old thing? Oh, I got it for somethingorother. Can’t remember now, I have so many. I do recall having to scream and scream and make myself sick to get it though”. |
I sent my proxy vote by email to the LAA office, received a receipt confirmation.
|
rog747, that's not so much an inappropriate post as a major misreading of the situation.
The Motions are on the table simply because the LAA constitution says that any Member may propose a Motion and so long as it is in accordance with the Articles then it will put to the membership. The LAA would be worthy of criticism if they did not allow a properly constituted Motion to be heard. The fact that the Motions have been tabled is a positive indication of the democratic nature of the LAA, not an indication that they have somehow been cowed. Also, if you read the material on the LAA website carefully you will see that it was not TCT who "deemed some part of the LAA's past comment as libellous" leading to "the LAA agreeing to Motion to have the comment removed" - that didn't happen at all. What happened was that the LAA deemed an element of the 2016 Motion to be libellous (against TCT, presumably) and it was agreed by the LAA Board to delete that element and inform the proposer that had been done. There is enough misinformation already flying around about all this that we should all carefully read the statements made by all involved and represent them properly in these discussions. |
Originally Posted by hoodie
(Post 10266761)
rog747, that's not so much an inappropriate post as a major misreading of the situation.
The Motions are on the table simply because the LAA constitution says that any Member may propose a Motion and so long as it is in accordance with the Articles then it will put to the membership. The LAA would worthy of criticism if they did not allow a properly constituted Motion to be heard. The fact that the Motions have been tabled is a positive indication of the democratic nature of the LAA, not an indication that they have somehow been cowed. Also, if you read the material on the LAA website carefully you will see that it was not TCT who "deemed some part of the LAA's past comment as libellous" leading to "the LAA agreeing to Motion to have the comment removed" - that didn't happen at all. What happened was that the LAA deemed an element of the 2016 Motion to be libellous (against TCT, presumably) and it was agreed by the LAA Board to delete that element and inform the proposer that had been done. There is enough misinformation already flying around about all this that we should all carefully read the statements made by all involved and represent them properly in these discussions. Thank you very much - It is a hugely complex situation - I've removed it. |
Originally Posted by Sam Rutherford
(Post 10266721)
I sent my proxy vote by email to the LAA office, received a receipt confirmation.
|
G-TAFF
If this really gains traction and is re-awarded, it is purely done by fear of legal action and would be utterly misplaced.
In 1989, Tony Smith flew his Jungmann from Darwin to Sherburn. Solo. With no GPS, as it didn't exist at the time. Now that was deserving of awards. What we are discussing here isn't at all. |
From the LAA forum; Re: The Importance of Voting at OUR AGM . https://services.lightaircraftassoci...ost_target.gifby Tracey Curtis-Taylor » Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:41 pm ‘It’s an ambush’ writes one enraged participant on this string; ‘and I hate my association being used in this way’. Indeed: we shouldn’t be in the situation we are now in. So imagine how I felt in 2016 to discover just before the LAA AGM that it was being used for the culmination of months of nasty social media abuse against me. 75% of those who attended the meeting and heard me speak voted against a hostile and personal motion but it passed by virtue of an unprecedented volume of proxy votes. A post of 02 October 2018 on this forum indicates how that could be accomplished. My statement has gone out, along with Stewart’s. In the light of subsequent posts, I merely add the following: • You will find in the Minutes of the LAA Board of 23 September 2016 that the hostile motion was written by the Chairman. Stewart and I argue that he did not deal with this sorry saga with appropriate impartiality. True, an in-house report produced in April 2018 found his actions beyond reproach; unfortunately it has been kept secret, with no indication of the evidence or reasoning that led to this conclusion. • In a letter of 17 January 2018 the Chairman did indeed suggest that if I wasn’t happy with my treatment, I should bring the motion. This was in response to repeated requests not that the vote be overturned but that the processes which led to it be reviewed. Yes, they came from a solicitor and yes, they were eye-wateringly expensive. Does anyone who has a solicitor write a letter thereby have a ‘legal team’? Don’t be silly. • The Woodhams Award is not a competitive prize, it’s an accolade. Even if the allegations against me were true (and they are not), the 2016 motion was petty and vindictive. I appreciate the Secretary’s action in proposing a motion restoring the Woodhams Award and thereby complementing Stewart’s, and hope you will support both. Though I am prepared to defend myself against foul accusations, do bear in mind that neither motion is about what I did or didn’t do; they are about the manner in which the LAA conducted itself. |
Sad, oh so sad.
I see the word accolade is used. Which of the two definitions is TCT focused on? 1 or 2? https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....aad5f7dfa0.jpg |
Even if the allegations against me were true (and they are not) |
Pick the fights that you might win.
Though I am prepared to defend myself against foul accusations, do bear in mind that neither motion is about what I did or didn’t do; they are about the manner in which the LAA conducted itself. This (campaign) is all about internal processes at the LAA. |
Re: The Importance of Voting at OUR AGM . by Tracey Curtis-Taylor » Fri Oct 05, 2018 9:41 pm I think that the higher message is here - "OUR". LAA members, look at the bigger picture! Be aware that the use of proxy votes can be a tool used by both those in favour and against the motions I think of the fuss about the US vote for their judge lately, 49/51 the media tells us. People are pouring all of their emotion into a fight to the philosophical death on the vote on the judge, and with apparent reason! One side loses, and there will be great anger! The populous is whipped into a frenzy about it - it is important! An Award?! A vote to restore an award taken away by member vote?! And Tracey would allow "HER" LAA to fight about it?! She would rather have 51% of the LAA members [re]award her an award she really does not seem to deserve. She would willingly allow 49% of the members feel horrible about their participation in the LAA! King Solomon is about to make a decision, and Tracey is struggling to be in the center of it, about to let the baby be cut in half over it! Tracey will happily take away a half from an angry LAA, rather than to allow a unified LAA to exist. To Tracey, Tracey getting a pat on the back is more important than "HER" LAA. To me, that says it all! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:14. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.