[BobD]

For those members of the LAA who cannot attend the AGM, but wish to express a view on "any" topic from the Agenda , a Proxy Form is now available from the LAA Website, and can be submitted by post, or by e-mail, with an Electronic Signature.

[josher]

interesting that the agenda refers to 'review of the awarding of of the woodhams trophy to TCT' and the proxy form refers to the 'rescinding of the awarding.....' Bit of a difference between those two!

An odd error by somebody

[Flintstone]

My thoughts exactly. Do you want to ask the question in the LAA forum or shall I (don't want to tread on your toes)?

[mixsfour]

I guess they've already decided to hold a review and they're thinking that at the end of the review someone might propose a motion to remove the award.

Mick

[Chris Martyr]

I can re-assure anyone who may be worrying about any ambiguities in the pre-AGM blurb, that the wording of the PROPOSAL is to reverse the decision and rescind the award.

[josher]

Chris this isn't 'worry about ambiguities.....blub' This is concern about wording difference between the published agenda item and the the wording on the proxy form - they surely must be IDENTICAL for the proxy to have any standing. I know that the AGM is viewed in some quarters as tedious legal exercise to be got through asqap but this shows at best sloppy management of the exercise and reflects badly on the organisation in circumstances where withdrawl of honours from TCT is likely to attract publicity outside the LAA

[Chris Martyr]

Do you mean one or two minor inconsistencies in the admin there Josher ?

Barry Tempest and I have indeed noticed this too , but the wording on the proxy form itself is for, 'The rescinding of the Bill Woodhams award to ,,,,,SWSNBN'.
There will be time given prior to the Motion being tabled for clarification of any points being brought up.
And believe you me , ambiguities are not on our agenda !

[cockney steve]

AIUI, in these sort of organisations,a motion for an amendment to the original proposal , can be called and seconded "from the floor" The chair is obliged to acknowledge such a proposal, control any further discussion,ask for a seconder to the proposal the meeting finally formulates and call on a vote...this is constitutional and binding
Persons involved in such motions, should make sure they do not unwittingly invalidate any proxies... (I get the feeling, that's the concern here, IE the motion finally placed to the meeting is substantially different to what the proxies were voting for)

[SteveN]

Quick reminder (for those without easy access to a printer) the proxy form is also printed on the back of your address slip that came with this month's LAA mag.

[Skybolt]

The LAA AGM was attended by a record number of members on a fine Autumn day. The motion to rescind the award of the 2014 "Bill Woodhams" trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor was passed by a sizeable majority. Barry Tempest spoke to the motion, Harry Hopkins spoke on behalf of the LAA awards committee giving the background to the award and Tracey Curtis-Taylor spoke against the motion.
The AGM was admirably chaired by Brian Davies.
I hope this will bring to an end an unsavoury contretemps on social media. The matter is closed.

[cockney steve]

Tracey Curtis-Taylor spoke against the motion.

To paraphrase Mandy Rice Davies "Well, she would, wouldn't she"

I think the ramifications of this righteous decision will rumble on.
The LAA has gone up in my estimation. (not that that's of any import to them) but friends tend to be harder to garner than enemies.
Astounded to hear the woman showed up to face her detractors. in total denial?...or does she have more brass-neck than a Kayan?

It's over for the LAA, that's a plus for them and a salutary lesson!.

[Jodelman]

The motion to rescind the award of the 2014 "Bill Woodhams" trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor was passed by a sizeable majority.

That doesn't tell the whole story.

There were over 100 members in attendance at the AGM and after listening to the statements by both sides only six or seven voted for the motion with the vast majority against it. The motion was won by the proxy votes who had probably been swayed by the disreputable campaign in the other place without having heard the other side of the argument.

[ChampChump]

Sorry, Jodelman, but my proxy vote wasn't the result of being swayed, but by consideration of as many aspects & facts as I could find.

Had I been able to fly up today, I would have, but would have been one of those whose vote was already in, rather than one of many (?) who knew nothing about TCT and had to make up their minds rather quickly - or abstain.

My spies have related events; I'm sorry to have missed what sounds like a fascinating talk too.

[Flintstone]

My spies have related events; I'm sorry to have missed what sounds like a fascinating talk too.

Rusty was rather good if a little softly spoken*.




* I'll be happy if I'm still breathing let alone up in front of an audience at his age.

[Cessna57]

The motion to rescind the award of the 2014 "Bill Woodhams" trophy to Tracey Curtis-Taylor was passed by a sizeable majority.

That doesn't tell the whole story.

There were over 100 members in attendance at the AGM and after listening to the statements by both sides only six or seven voted for the motion with the vast majority against it. The motion was won by the proxy votes who had probably been swayed by the disreputable campaign in the other place without having heard the other side of the argument.

It would have been really good if that side of the story had either been put on her website, or maybe published elsewhere.

The speech must have been passed by her legal team and PR team, so it must be safe to publish.

Just claiming that it is disreputable to point out that organisations were hoodwinked into thinking it was solo (Some awards even say solo on them. Personally, I'd not accept an award for something I'd not done, I'd certainly not be photographed with one for something I'd not done) is really not helping.

If you want to stop the sorry mess, just publish the speech and then ignore everything else from then on in.

Then her side will have been put.

No one cares it wasn't solo do they ? No one actually cares that she took Ewald.

There's obviously something going on behind the scenes, or this would have been put to bed ages ago. Nobody understands the reluctance to explain.

I didn't go to the LAA AGM, I've not heard her side as she will not give it. It's been admitted it wasn't solo, it's been admitted she took Ewald. Who cares ?

Just calling others "disreputable" isn't helping, you need to be smarter, just publish the speech, which I presume gave an explanation, which has not ever been given anywhere. THEN it will go away.

My theory: It is deliberately being kept open for PR purposes. No such thing as bad publicity ? It must be this, a bunch of school children could have handled it better and shut it down quicker. So why is it being kept open ?

The debate is no longer about whether she was solo or not. She wasn't. That's been said. She took Ewald, and a support team and even a support plane.

It is now about why the story has not been shut down. Just calling others disreputable is not the way to shut the story.

HCAP haven't rescinded their award, they've just changed it. That's fair. LAA rescinded instead of changed. It would still be fair if the LAA gave her and Ewald a different award for what they DID do. No one could argue with that. People would even stand behind it. It's time to start acting like grown ups, stop accusing people of being disreputable for stating the truth and explain.

Soon someone is going to publish a clip of TCT saying she was solo aren't they ? and really you want to shut it down properly before that happens.

Stop feeding the trolls by calling them disreputable. Publish the speech/explanation. That's not going to happen is it ? A lot of people can't work out why.