ALL MEMBERS ! Please fill out those proxy forms..!!

[Paul Catanach]

Thanks Alan.

Righto then, back to work everyone. Nothing to see here.

[L21-B]

.

[neilmurg]

How many votes (in the room and proxy)?

[DaveWhite]

Spend two years ignoring, then two months abusing your constituency and they don't vote for you.

Who'd have thought?

[L21-B]

Spend two years ignoring, then two months abusing your constituency and they don't vote for you.

Who'd have thought?

I do hope Ms Curtis-Taylor now does the honourable thing and resigns from the LAA forthwith.

[andymac53]

Results.

Motion One: For 82, Against 389

Motion Two: For 202, Against 277

[John Price]

OUCH !!

John

[Bill Scott]

Well I never wanted to go to one of those posh garden parties anyway

[Alan Kilbride]

Please Tracey, for your own sake, let it go now.
And I would suggest you are careful about further comments damaging the standing of the LAA in your book, film and play.(charades)
If you hadn't told every media outlet that the LAA were out to get you, I would have some sympathy, but the association which has done so much to help me continue to fly and help others in aviation is not as you describe.

[RDyer]

Having had a bit of experience with the media, they do love sensationalising your words. You have to be very careful and they will always twist your words to what they want it to be.

Having said this, direct quotes are something different and clearly the Daily Mail article is pretty despicable. The LAA is not some profit making/taking golf club or some fancy London establishment. The LAA is a fantastic organisation that helps the young and disadvantaged of this world. It is the counter to the rich greed that so pervades anything of interest today.

I will never be rich enough to fly a Stearman, I will never get a trophy or be a star of a documentary. I will never rub shoulders with Royalty. I struggle to pay my mortgage. I work for and in support of the military I do not feel like a member of an elite old boys club, but when I look at TCT, I get the distinct feeling that I would be excluded from the circles she moves in. I am sick of this victim culture and I am especially sick of people of privilege playing the victim card.

You want to see a woman who has really fought against disadvantage and achieved amazing things in aviation - look up Jessica Cox. Now she deserves the trophy and I suggest the LAA give it to her next year.

To TCT, I say stop harming my LAA. I plead to her to think about others first, consider what is decent. Failing that I warn her in no uncertain terms, if the next bout of publicity does bring harm to the LAA then I for one will make it my mission to get all the facts out and defend our LAA.

Finally, Tracey - you really want respect? Go get a plane, any plane and do the trip solo. Look at what Jessica Cox has had to deal with and then take a good look in the mirror.

To be slightly more rude and direct about it - there are a lot people out there doing amazing and extraordinary things. You want your legacy back? Well put up or shut up.

[Chris Martyr]

the association which has done so much to help me continue to fly and help others in aviation is not as you describe.

So right Alan !
I stand right alongside you on that .

I purposely stayed away from the Sywell AGM today . Having stood up and been counted in 2016 , I felt that my vote by-proxy today would suffice .

The LAA/PFA has done more good for grassroots aviators than any other organisation in the UK could ever hope to do ....We can not thank them enough !

Regardless of what has been printed in the papers today [and most of it's rubbish] I am more than confident that 'our' organisation has the strength , professionalism and resolve to see its membership into a future that does not include people who only wish to elevate themselves and their sycophants in their aspirations.

Two years ago , Barry Tempest wrote on this forum that the case was now closed .

Do I need to repeat Kenneth Wolstenholme's famous words from 1966 ?

[L21-B]

Ms Curtis-Taylor; the way you have portrayed yourself and described the majority of the LAA membership, did you really think the outcome of todays AGM would have been any different ? No I didn't either. If ever there was a time to sit back and reflect, then that time is now. Over and Out.

[Paul Catanach]

In my opinion what Miss Curtis-Taylor wants has nothing to do with the wellbeing of the LAA.

She made it quite clear in yesterday's newspaper articles that this is all about money. Today's votes will have a direct effect upon her (and other's) investment in the upcoming film and book and that's what all of this is about. That and being able to move in the 'right' circles which of course leads to further wealth. Had the award been reinstated the way would have been clear for an unblemished release but as it is there's now a rather inconvenient cloud hanging over the whole shebang.

If she jad accepted the 2016 result all would have been forgotten by now, except by a bunch of jealous, embittered old mysoginists and their sexist ex-military pals. But she didn't, couldn't, and now it's all gone very public. Maybe she subscribes to the Ryanair philosophy on publicity, if so she's getting the bad kind in spades.

I don't really care about that. If a book or film is released with, ahem........... inaccuracies the general public will neither know nor care. We'll know of course but then many of us have all along. However, just like Robert (Dyer) wrote above I will start to become motivated if she continues her attack on the LAA. Someone asked me before the recent press stories if I would be prepared to table a motion proposing expulsion and I said I would not. This evening I'm open to the idea. Should her assault on the LAA continue ask me again, I may have a different answer for you. I suspect though I might have to elbow my way to the front of the queue.

[Tracey Curtis-Taylor]

Might is right, of course. Morally and logically the majority of LAA members were just as wrong as they were in 2016.
1. The AGM should not have been used in 2016 as a vehicle for the venting of a private grievance. Members failed to take the opportunity to put that right in 2018.
2. The Chairman should not have condoned the 2016 motion; it usurped the functions of the Awards Committee. If the membership wanted the Committee to review and/or change its 2014 Woodhams Award that is what the motion should have said.
3. In any event, the Chairman should not have rewritten the motion just because its authors couldn’t manage to come up with one that was not libellous.
4. And indeed what he came up with should not have been gone before the AGM, not only because of (2) above, but also because the proposition that the Woodhams Award to me had brought the LAA ‘into disrepute’ was nonsense; it was based on neither reasoning nor evidence.
5. The more perceptive Board members realised before the 2016 AGM that what was proposed was morally and legally unsound. Their advice and objections were rejected by the Chairman and they either walked away or changed their tune.
6. The 2018 motion that the 2016 proceedings were unjust and unjustified was irrefutably correct. It was not about whether members liked or trusted me; it meant what the words said. Its rejection simply demonstrates that the majority either did not understand procedural form or chose not to.
7. The Boys’ Club should feel collectively ashamed of its behaviour. I have no doubt that a few members at least, including some who voted against the 2018 motions, will realise that they have not done well.

[Paul Catanach]

<sigh>