NewStuff said:
Tim, that's exceptional dedication to a cause. Hats off.
SNIP
The people (yes, I am looking for at you, Mullan, Brocklebank, Burgess) who behind these shenanigans
SNIP
As you say hats off to Tim for pushing this onwards. (I am away on holiday so did not participate in the meeting and have only just got back to internet connection.) However it should be noted that regrettably this current state of affairs is mainly due to BCA's Executive trying to do their best and
not the three quoted above. (One of my growing concerns is whether we will retain the Exec by the time the AGM has passed. Any one volunteering to help out?)
So far as I can see it, we have various motions which all aim in the same direction; to remove the shackles self imposed at the last AGM. Tim has proposed two constitutional amendments which deletes the offending sentence. (Two for technical reasons which I won't bore readers with.) I have another which amends the offending sentence. I also have a separate constitutional amendment which makes it plain that what ever is said in the constitution, it does not stop BCA from campaigning to change the law. Tim also has a clarifying motion which makes it clear the sentence does not limit our work. (I am unclear about the status of the 2016 motion.)
Tim and I agree that both our approaches will work but he favours the 'simple remove it' approach whilst I go for the 'change it to reflect the correct legal position and then make it clear it does not stop us from campaigning to change the law'. I won't go into why I have gone down this route in this posting but please be assured there are good reasons for doing so. (My views on Section 4.6 can be read at
http://www.cncc.org.uk/doc/1121.)
I also have a procedural motion which means that it will be for the meeting to decide how to tackle the situation, not any one person who ever they might be.
Bob Mehew
BCA Legal & Insurance Officer