wabashcannonball 0 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Frankie, Alan did have the chance to speak at the AGM - he was the secratary and board member - that's a powerful position to air his objections to any issue he had. Any AGM I've ever attended ( which is a a lot) anyone in attendance has the right to free speech. Yes, the Trust needs to improve and the sole representative on here knows that. It will never improve though due to all name calling by some and what I perceive as a smear campaign against certain board members. I don't know any of them personally but I do know, as you've already stated, the truth somewhere in the middle. Alan could have waited until legal advice had shown that although mistakes were made, The Trust had acted lawfuly. I've said it, you have said it and many others have said it, the trust needs a forum to engage with it's members and prospective members. Only then will we see better ideas put the board and debated in an adult-mature-like fashion. What's with the truth somewhere in the middle pish, it's either true or it isn't, it's a bit like a little bit dead... and both sides cannot be right.... go on somebody tell us they could be....... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chilledbear 16 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 In all of this I dont see too many people who are "anti-RST" - but many do have issues with RST Board individuals. Too very different things. not to be overlooked. A bit like saying, I don't like the cabinet, but that doesn't mean I am against the goverment. If everyone on here wants the board to change, why not become members? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmck 117 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 A bit like saying, I don't like the cabinet, but that doesn't mean I am against the goverment. It would be perfectly sensible to say, as the analogy properly is, I'm a Tory, but I don't like the cabinet. If everyone on here wants the board to change, why not become members? I am a member of the Trust. I don't think I have the capacity or, for that matter, time to lead it. Being a responsible member involves things like having an opinion on the board. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,354 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Frankie, Alan did have the chance to speak at the AGM - he was the secratary and board member - that's a powerful position to air his objections to any issue he had. Any AGM I've ever attended ( which is a a lot) anyone in attendance has the right to free speech. No he didn't. He wanted to make a comment in respect of the accounts and was denied that opportunity. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rbr 1,247 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 No he didn't. He wanted to make a comment in respect of the accounts and was denied that opportunity. But the party line is that he was told to wait , 5 , 10 minutes , till the end depending on who is replying. Some heard it said others didn't , very strange 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 No he didn't. He wanted to make a comment in respect of the accounts and was denied that opportunity. Bluedell, you aready stated on this (or another) thread that he only said he wanted to say why he resigned as secretary, he did not say be wanted to talk about the accounts. If he had only said that then he would have been able to speak. We can argue all day that we knew what he was going to say so should have let him speak but I don't think anyone foresaw that he would walk out. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 The rest of your post I dont really disagree with. But how could he wait until the legal advice was sought ? The AGM was where the financials were proposed to be signed off and he felt in conscience he couldnt. The legal advice was sought after that fact, was it not ? Can someone confirm if the legal advice was sought (and obtained, which is rather important in this instance) prior, or subsequent, to the AGM. Yeah, I agree with us needing to know whether legal advice was sought before or after. It would shed some light on the issue. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wabashcannonball 0 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki2VMALEPc0]YouTube - The Moody Blues - Question[/ame] 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plgsarmy 111 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 Yeah, I agree with us needing to know whether legal advice was sought before or after. It would shed some light on the issue. The legal advice was sought when the allegations were originally made, prior to the AGM. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stimpy 0 Posted October 1, 2010 Share Posted October 1, 2010 What's with the truth somewhere in the middle pish, it's either true or it isn't, it's a bit like a little bit dead... and both sides cannot be right.... go on somebody tell us they could be....... There's two sides to a story and each side tends to tell their own biased version. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.