Ian B ?
Thanks for your formatting, yes it helps greatly. That format was not ?viewed? when I clicked through the various links BUT I don?t know if the ?bullet points? already exist or whether they are being proposed (and voted on).
There are several lines below referring to points 9, 10, 11 and 13 ? to what do they relate?
The ?arguments for? seems to state that the proposals are ?tweaks? BUT, if I understand correctly (and I haven?t so far) one of those ?tweaks? is to change the word ?employees? to ?members? ? that is scarcely a ?tweak? but rather a momentous movement equivalent to the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79 (if I understand correctly).
I guess what I am asking is; what existed before, what are we voting to change and what do 9, 10, 11 and 13 refer to?
Did I read the agenda before hand ? no, I didn?t know it was available (probably wouldn?t have been able to get at it anyway given my inability to find just this part)
Did I attend the AGM ? no, I was told (as we all were) not to bother unless we actually intended to participate but to watch the stream instead on Facebook (I didn?t know what was going to happen and didn?t know the rules as to whether I could participate in any event)
Did I listen to the podcasts ? yes, I listened to the first 5-10 minutes of Rostam?s podcast and (sorry Rostam) I understood none of it. All I heard was proposed changes to section something or other and I didn?t know what was going on - so I turned it off. Sorry.
Did I contact a Rep ? no, why would I? I have never considered that as an option (my ignorance).
What research did I do ? well, I knew there was an AGM, I wanted to ?be there? but was told ?no? unless I wanted to actually speak ? I didn?t know that I actually wanted to speak and because the places were limited to 100 I did as I was supposed to and declined the zoom. Next thing I get an email asking me to vote.
All I was asking here was ?what were we voting on? ? especially this discrimination stuff as I didn?t understand it. Also, (I suppose) I didn?t know what the proposals were until the eBallot thing arrived ? I was expecting a Russell Vs. Rostam tick box only.
If your stone doesn?t knock me out, I will be happy to return it.
JoshW ?
There isn?t anything wrong with your proposal ? it?s just me that doesn?t understand it (sorry).
I can?t collate the ideal that the BCA will deal with any issues arsing viz a viz the multiple proposals over section 10.1 (how the BCA gets involved with complaints ? I couldn?t understand those three proposals either).
I also don?t know what is meant by ?what is considered discrimination in law? because the (apparent) existing policy appears to step outside of ?law? whilst purporting to embrace it.
Please don?t think I am complaining about ?you?, I?m not. I simply don?t understand what is going on.
If anyone could throw some more light (with or without stones) I would be grateful.
Ian