Quote Originally Posted by alwaysinjured View Post
It is also a convenient misrepresentation. The executive try to deflect this as a criticism of committee in general whereas, The criticism has been directed at a few members of the executive, and certainly less inflammatory and rude than public statements made by them in multiple forum accounts. Would "george" for example like to identify themselves, directly criticising Andy or hide away in shame - it can only be one of three people, and I can have a shrewd guess at which!

The criticism of committee if there is one, is by now they must clearly accept that the july rules for example should not have been approved. There were a lot of basic problems. So clearly it questions the committee dynamic or the due diligence done by each member by which that document was approved, and it certainly question the lack of proactive consultation with such as Wynn, so clearly something is not right. Self reflection needed. Andy is the only one that I have seen "hold his hands up" for that ,saying he should have looked under the hood! for which I respect him enormously, others should do the same.

Secondly, Andy clearly wanted a motion voted. It is his basic right to do that if he wants it so. They should have supported his right to a hearing, not necessarily his position, against the attempts to prevent it. If they did not want it, fine, allow the vote and vote it down!.

He also won a "consensus" at a meeting in preston in as far as anyone (including the secretary) can tell which was removed from minutes. There is no justifiable reason for sitting on sidelines allowing either vote to be supressed.

When the first one in preston was discounted because it is was argued no "formal show of hands" was made (nowhere mandated in the constitution for committee) , Andy did the right thing. He then and as a consequence proposed a written motion instead then for a proper vote, to avoid the uncertainty, that was then refused a hearing or a vote! Committee should have acted to allow proper process even if voting against. For that the whole committee are guilty of standing by and letting it happen.

As far as I am aware , no actual show of hands was done on approval of the letter to coroner, nor can there have been, since some wording was not discussed till after, as far as I am aware from Andy no show of hands took place, and I doubt if a written motion was passed. Yet that is presented as UNANIMOUS! when an actual consensus at Preston meeting was ignored because the chair didnt like it! Committee - these things have to stop!

Thirdly the ad hominem attacks and misleading statements in multiple accounts on this forum by several committee are clearly not right. The rest of committee are guilty by association unless they act to prevent that, resulting in moderators resigning now.

So committee have some soul searching. Brett should not have to put up with a load of **** which is not right and not of his making, and that needs directing at those at the helm doing such things.
I have just received a PM thanking the Committee for all our hard work saying :

It must be galling to face trial by forum whilst making our beloved sport safer. I appreciate all you are doing.

The writer used a pseudonym but, as I have often observed, the only time people complain about pseudonyms is when they don’t like what has been posted. Otherwise they appear to be OK and part of the fun of the forum.
~~~
The committee has been criticised because it doesn’t generally address posts on here and to illustrate why I choose just one post from AI to respond to.

The “July rules”: date back to… last July, and as you note Andy Walmsley accepted them without dissent. They preceded the Inquest by 3 months so could never have been the final version which was not agreed until after the Coroner’s letter was received (in late October) and just before the Calendar went to the printers at the end of November so it could be sent out before Christmas.

Consultation: the notice about the review was placed on the FRA website. Clearly some RO saw it because they sent in their comments as did others during the second round of consultation.

The Motion: in my 12 years on the Committee I do not recall a single “motion”. It may be how other committees work (although I think you have said you cannot work with committees?) but it is not how the FRA has chosen to work despite its frequently changing membership. I suggest the 22 people on the committee should be allowed to decide how they wish to work between themselves rather than be told by one member or even a non-member.

The Preston meeting: you assert matter was “removed from the minutes”. The minutes for that meeting were unanimously approved by the committee at the following meeting in Kendal at which Andy Walmsley was present. He did not register his dissent.

Letter to Coroner: I have addressed this elsewhere. With 17 out of 19 members in support the letter could have been legitimately sent that day but instead the Chair and the committee went a long way to achieve unanimity by gaining Andy’s approval.

And so on.

The above are short responses. They are not qualified or convoluted with subordinate phrases but I believe them to be true. I was present at the meetings referred to. You were not. Fortunately all I have said can be proven by documentary evidence.

Now what?

Will you say “OK Graham I accept your points?”

Or will we see you break your declared silence yet again with another opus to which I am expected to reply...and on and on?

Life is short and then we die.