| Mailshot continued Interesting letter, Eddie. Life must be really dull in Peterborough to allow
you so much time at the typewriter! Something that there was little response to -
including your letter - was the suggestion from Steve Shaller that important decisions be
decided via postal ballot rather than a hand-show. Perhaps even a secret ballot? Anyone
thought about it…Ed
FLOTATION RETHINK?
I feel that enough time since the EGM. has elapsed to re-open the arguments
pro and con the proposal to float the company. The opponents of the proposal quite rightly
won the day with their cogent arguments - the flaws in the safeguards offered to the
ordinary members. Somebody's quote that the document contained three pages of
‘goodies’ for the Directors and half a page of ‘promised land’ for the
rest, still rings in my memory. What is disappointing is the lack of response so far to
these arguments, or better still an offer of a reformed document giving those safeguards
which the opponents felt were absent.
It would be a grave error simply to re-issue the first proposals and to
assume that against a background of the financial success of the coming years balance
sheet, that the fears and opposition would fade away. I recently received an offer to
invest via the AIM which contained the standard warning that shares in companies quoted on
any of the alternative markets were likely to be difficult to trade in. The Board of
Management may have a right to see this years’ enhanced figures as evidence of their
own worth to the company. We also are entitled to believe that any success is based upon
our efforts, that equally deserve reward, and not in just a one-off offer of shares, that
might have dubious value. This issue is one that should be resolved as soon as possible
and well before we, as a company, begin to think about responding to nebulous warnings
about our position in the market place and proposals to change the Company from providing
a taxi service to a one-stop transport provider.
Jon Tremlett (Y32)
Before the Chairman’s recent illness, he was scheduled to offer a reply
to Jon’s letter. However, as things stand at present, I have no intention of placing
additional work on his shoulders and as such, the above stands on it’s own merit or
otherwise. However, my view is unchanged. I supported the flotation. It failed and we must
accept that situation. To offer a revamped version this soon would be an insult to those
who voted against. We should not assume that the anti’s voted ‘no’ purely
because they didn’t agree with the way the scheme was presented…Ed |
THANKS TO A CARING DRIVER
Yesterday at lunch time, I jumped into a taxi at 12.55 outside 11 - 33 St
Johns Street to go to a new Bistro in the Oxo Tower complex. The driver and I were both
uncertain precisely where to drop me and as a result I left a white carrier bag in the
cab. Having been mugged in the past for the sake of a briefcase, I use these bags instead
and it was chocablock with work-related material plus the usual female items - barely
excluding the kitchen sink! I was thrilled to bits when my assistant phoned me at around
7.00 pm last night and told me that a cab driver had just dropped it into my office. Thank
you very, very much. You saved me hours of trouble.
Jan Bailey, Facilities Manager
Johnson Controls Ltd, EC1
DAVID CLEGG
Thank you for your letter of 6th April 1998 re my article on the
Chairman’s banning of David Clegg from using Call Sign magazine to report to the
membership. It will be seen by many that you are overstepping your remit as Editor and
adopting the role of censor. The magazine belongs to the members - not you or the Board of
Management. I hope you are not under the impression that no reference to David Clegg can
be made in the magazine because of current circumstances in the hope of keeping David out
of the memberships gaze - out of sight, out of mind - because you personally may not feel
predisposed towards him. I repeat, Call Sign is the memberships’ magazine and not a
propaganda rag for the BoM.
You cannot claim that you will print almost everything you are sent. I know
that you have not in at least two other instances, both in regard to David Clegg. You
appear to be biased against anything that refers to David - who, may I remind you, is
still an elected officer of this Society and you are failing in the pledge you gave to the
membership when you were first employed as the Editor with regards to keeping the magazine
with ... "the freedom, that Jery fought so hard for." Unless the magazine goes
back to the position of freedom that Jery maintained, I feel sure the members may question
your role in all of' this. It seems astonishing that a major issue in our Society is
virtually confined to the grape-vine and not being aired in our magazine expressly set up
for the purpose of communication between members and not being used as such in this case.
Free speech will always win against subterfuge and repression. Remember the
Pierce Merchant and Jonathan Aitken cases? Remaining objective and impartial should be
high on your list of your duties to the membership. The power of the press is considerable
in any free society but it must be used only for the truth devoid of censorship. If, as
you said in your letter, you will only print the first part of my submitted article, I
suggest that in the next edition you print the full article |
with a suitable explanation as
to why you would not publish it in it’s entirety. Please do not put me in the
position of having to submit my views elsewhere. Alan, please do not forget your origins
and where your loyalties should lie.
Ron Elmes (W44)
Ron Elmes submitted a letter consisting of two parts. One part criticised Alastair
Hill for repeating his views on PLC while the second criticises myself and the BoM for not
publishing items by David Clegg. His spoke of ‘totalitarian dictatorship’ and
‘silencing opposition’ when referring to David Clegg not writing in Call Sign.
Mr Elmes also mentioned that the DAC BoM "with the notable exception of David
Clegg" were being heavily criticised by the trade press for their conduct. He went on
to criticise me claiming that I was an extension of the BoM "…something that
Jery Craig never was." He also criticised the Chairman, Brian Rice, for mentioning
his (Ron Elmes) close proximity to David Clegg (both live in Sutton).
I replied to him (privately) by saying:
"Re your letter to Call Sign (undated): As you are no doubt
aware, David Clegg has chosen to issue a writ against myself and Call Sign quoting the
contents of one published letter.
As a result, I am unable to publish the second half of your letter re David
Clegg. The first page re PLC has been included in the May issue".
At the time, David Clegg had issued writs against myself (28 pages) and also
against the BoM (as individuals). I felt, as Editor, that publishing all of Ron Elmes
letter would not be in the interest of justice. The decision was mine - as are all issues
in connection with the magazine. I stand by that decision. Very few letters are not
published and indeed several have been far from complimentary to members of the BoM. But
not once have they (the BoM) issued a criticism because they know my views on censorship.
They also know that I have enough common sense to think before I publish anything that
could possibly have a harmful effect on our Society. Mr Elmes writes of the BoM - bar
David Clegg - being heavily criticised by the trade press. He obviously means The Badge
and CTN. No other criticism has been offered anywhere. In fact, so keen were The Badge to
keep up the anti-DAC barrage, that they even reprinted a CTN item when obviously running
out of their own material!
So yes Mr Elmes, I suppose you will have to rely on the grape-vine or read a
report in The Badge where their nameless ‘Court Reporter’ gave his completely |
