Thank you for comments on my statements

[BrahimHemdani 1]

I would like to thank everyone who has taken the trouble to post comments on the two statements that I published here on Sunday night, whether you have agreed with me or not.

 

The purpose of publishing the statements on here was to have the informed debate that did not take place at the AGM and I believe that that has now been achieved.

 

I have made my reasons for not signing the accounts and resigning as Secretary absolutely clear and I have done my best to answer the relevant questions that have arisen. However, in the light of the RST statement I will not be answering any more questions on these threads.

 

I will make a further statement on the RST statement before the end of the week.

[Frankie 8,150]

You're welcome mate...

 

I think most people on Gersnet have contributed well to this debate and look forward to your riposte and any further comment from the RST.

 

Nobody is enjoying what is a difficult time for the RST (and yourself I'm sure) so I'd urge you to be very careful in what you say so the neutral (and the RST membership of course) are given a true picture of events.

[Stimpy 0]

Attention seeking or whistleblowing - the cynic in me thinks the the first part is true.

 

Although mistakes have been made, legal advice has cleared the board of any wrong doing so I cannot see what a very public slanging match will achieve!

 

I could be way off here, however, it seems to me you had issues with certain personalities on the board and didn't have the baws to stand up to them face to face. Instead you made play on the current feelings about the trust on Internet forums. Indeed, Christine has challenged you on this very forum and your come back has been somewhat apologetic which tells me you're feeling guilty for igniting something any professional business man could have dealt without the drama.

[Frankie 8,150]

Attention seeking or whistleblowing - the cynic in me thinks the the first part is true.

 

Although mistakes have been made, legal advice has cleared the board of any wrong doing so I cannot see what a very public slanging match will achieve!

 

I could be way off here, however, it seems to me you had issues with certain personalities on the board and didn't have the baws to stand up to them face to face. Instead you made play on the current feelings about the trust on Internet forums. Indeed, Christine has challenged you on this very forum and your come back has been somewhat apologetic which tells me you're feeling guilty for igniting something any professional business man could have dealt without the drama.

 

Of course the chap was seeking attention; he had been denied the platform to give his account at the AGM, as well as a belated email, so felt he had to do something to reach the membership to make them aware of the issues at hand. It wasn't as if the rest of the board were going to do it, hiding the issue from each other then from the membership.

 

I read BH's 'apologetic' responses as someone who didn't want to use this method but had little option. I'd contend his private actions, along with making public a very serious issue, does indeed take 'baws' and the guy has attempted to follow up his statement with further comments which show his sincerity to debate. Christine has been challenged herself and has failed to do the same more than once without good reason unfortunately.

 

None of the rest of us will know for sure just who is telling the truth here so I think the middle ground is a fair place to stand for the majority. Mistakes have been made and questionable actions have formed part of that.

 

So far I don't see anyone taking responsibility for those mistakes other than to blame a respected businessman for having the temerity to correctly point out irregularities. To that end, I've not seen one apology for these shady dealings, just deflection after deflection.

 

As for current internet feelings on the Trust, well some people's attitudes are less than constructive but the RST themselves are just as culpable as anyone else in that regard and that is especially disappointing as they purport to lead and unite.

 

Reasonable questions have been ignored, valid criticism scoffed at and people nothing to do with this episode lied about. Just when will someone step forward and say enough is enough and lead the Trust back to respectability?

[plgsarmy 111]

Of course the chap was seeking attention; he had been denied the platform to give his account at the AGM, as well as a belated email, so felt he had to do something to reach the membership to make them aware of the issues at hand. It wasn't as if the rest of the board were going to do it, hiding the issue from each other then from the membership.

 

I read BH's 'apologetic' responses as someone who didn't want to use this method but had little option. I'd contend his private actions, along with making public a very serious issue, does indeed take 'baws' and the guy has attempted to follow up his statement with further comments which show his sincerity to debate. Christine has been challenged herself and has failed to do the same more than once without good reason unfortunately.

 

None of the rest of us will know for sure just who is telling the truth here so I think the middle ground is a fair place to stand for the majority. Mistakes have been made and questionable actions have formed part of that.

 

So far I don't see anyone taking responsibility for those mistakes other than to blame a respected businessman for having the temerity to correctly point out irregularities. To that end, I've not seen one apology for these shady dealings, just deflection after deflection.

 

As for current internet feelings on the Trust, well some people's attitudes are less than constructive but the RST themselves are just as culpable as anyone else in that regard and that is especially disappointing as they purport to lead and unite.

 

Reasonable questions have been ignored, valid criticism scoffed at and people nothing to do with this episode lied about. Just when will someone step forward and say enough is enough and lead the Trust back to respectability?

 

Frankie,

 

You are peddling this myth that he was denied the platform to give his account at the AGM. If he could not hear what the Chair said he should have asked him to speak up. If I have failed to answer relative or legitimate questions then I apologise. Yesterday was a very difficult day for me for personal reasons and I was doing a lot of forum hopping during the time I was at home. I can only remember two questions. One about how the Trust recovers from this (or words to that effect) which I answered but perhaps not to your liking. The other was about why it wasn't brought up at the AGM which i think Craig answered. Other than that, I must have missed other questions.

[wabashcannonball 0]

Frankie,

 

You are peddling this myth that he was denied the platform to give his account at the AGM. If he could not hear what the Chair said he should have asked him to speak up. If I have failed to answer relative or legitimate questions then I apologise. Yesterday was a very difficult day for me for personal reasons and I was doing a lot of forum hopping during the time I was at home. I can only remember two questions. One about how the Trust recovers from this (or words to that effect) which I answered but perhaps not to your liking. The other was about why it wasn't brought up at the AGM which i think Craig answered. Other than that, I must have missed other questions.

 

What is your take on the ellis fiasco, did you see a business plan or a comic of any description PLG. BH recollections below.

 

 

Whilst it's completely off the subject, I can say that I was in contact with Ellis representative in Guernsey by letter, email and phone officially on behalf of the Trust and unofficially through an intermediary and I never heard of or received a business plan nor was one ever mentioned at an RST Executive or Board Meeting.

[Frankie 8,150]

Frankie,

 

You are peddling this myth that he was denied the platform to give his account at the AGM. If he could not hear what the Chair said he should have asked him to speak up. If I have failed to answer relative or legitimate questions then I apologise. Yesterday was a very difficult day for me for personal reasons and I was doing a lot of forum hopping during the time I was at home. I can only remember two questions. One about how the Trust recovers from this (or words to that effect) which I answered but perhaps not to your liking. The other was about why it wasn't brought up at the AGM which i think Craig answered. Other than that, I must have missed other questions.

 

I've already said Mr Harris should have handled the denial from the acting chair better but that still does not explain why the acting chair denied him the opportunity to speak there - pedantry aside of course.

 

Related to that my question of why didn't the board raise it themselves is still applicable despite Craig's answer - which still suggested the Trust should have done so to avoid the bad publicity you've received since.

 

I must have missed your outline of how the Trust intend to recover from this episode and what you intend doing to improve the organisation as a whole so if you could point me in its direction, I'd be much obliged. Moreover, given Mr Harris is being reprimanded as cynical and inaccurate on internet forums, what discipline is going to be handed out to board members have been guilty of similar divisive behaviour elsewhere?

[Frankie 8,150]

Actually, I do see the response you mention as to direction. Bit of a cop-out and you didn't address my riposte; although if you were too busy that's fair enough.

 

Perhaps you can do so now as well as give a personal opinion on the way forward for the Trust?

 

I just want to make clear that despite the nonsense from some and the strong criticisms I've made, I'm genuinely interested in this and just want a successful Trust.

[plgsarmy 111]

What is your take on the ellis fiasco, did you see a business plan or a comic of any description PLG. BH recollections below.

 

 

Whilst it's completely off the subject, I can say that I was in contact with Ellis representative in Guernsey by letter, email and phone officially on behalf of the Trust and unofficially through an intermediary and I never heard of or received a business plan nor was one ever mentioned at an RST Executive or Board Meeting.

 

 

To my knowledge he is correct although I was not part of the Executive Group so I can't confirm that.

[wabashcannonball 0]

To my knowledge he is correct although I was not part of the Executive Group so I can't confirm that.

 

Who is/was the executive group, do they in effect make the final decision on any direction to be taken on any issue, without having to put anything to anyone, i.e. without any controls over their remit.