Resignation fromCommittee

[alwaysinjured]

I disagree. It's only through engagement by the committee and Graham on this debate that we can see where Mike and others have merit and where they do not. We don't have all the facts ourselves, so need the committee to refute things they believe to be untrue or unjustified.

At some point we need to reach a state of affairs where:
they agree
they agree to differ

That can only be reached by discussion. I agree that statement and counter-statement is a lot less productive than a chat. It now seems that Mike is the one who is being intransigent by refusing to have a chat about his numerous issues.

Not so. Happy to do the presentation to the type of group that Witton proposes, including RO and whoever you like.

In the end the committee serve the membership. If RO see it, like it, think it should happen, the committee has to listen to that. That always was the right way to do it, and always was what I suggested.

Making it so uncomfortable for Andy that he had to leave was a Rubicon for me too. In my willingness to help out, because I am like him in outlook. What he cannot abide, neither can I It demonstrated that those present in force cannot accommodate open government or Andys way of thinking.
This secretive stuff has to go.

So open discussion with RO. (and committee who want to come) Bring it on.

Meanwhile I will continue to answer the scores of contacts I get from RO, who are clearly concerned, but uncomfortable expressing the views out in the open, so are counted amongst the 300 "bought in"