Trust Statement

[Fareham Grecian]

The speed of this is very disappointing and multiple other issues raised, have not been resolved! Why the rush and why not cover the full review first. This brings questions in relation to previous elections as well. Why should people re-stand until the whole review is complete. Some candidates have received personal abuse following raising questions and now we know that 500 plus people did not receive their papers! Lies and misrepresentation!!

3 2 1 he’s back in the room

 

[Mid Devon Grecian]

Thanks for posting this, I didn't get the email!

Me neither, but did get the one to vote in the original election!

You couldn’t make it up.

 

[tom_ecfc]

Move over Brexit, now we have Exeit!

 

[Matt Russell]

Looking forward to you standing

Do the rules allow a podcast to stand?

 

[Grecian in Guzz]

Looking forward to you standing

After you Squire of Fareham !

 

[Egg]

Nick Hawker might be on thin ice!

Not sure the Trust chair oversees elections although I accept that, ultimately, the buck stops with them.

That aside, in the circumstances I guess this is the right decision. At the same time, if, say, a third of the disenfranchised 500 had voted, the chances are it would have made no difference whatsoever to the result.

That being the case, I’d have thought the defeated candidates could have agreed that no useful purpose would be served by rerunning the election.

As it is, it seems entirely conceivable we’ll get an entirely different election, fought on rather different issues from the original one.

 

[Ex-ciderrr]

One of them things in a brewery spring to mind

 

[Egg]

The speed of this is very disappointing and multiple other issues raised, have not been resolved! Why the rush and why not cover the full review first. This brings questions in relation to previous elections as well. Why should people re-stand until the whole review is complete. Some candidates have received personal abuse following raising questions and now we know that 500 plus people did not receive their papers! Lies and misrepresentation!!

Maybe their hand was forced by people making wild insinuations!

 

[Grecian Max]

Not sure the Trust chair oversees elections although I accept that, ultimately, the buck stops with them.

That aside, in the circumstances I guess this is the right decision. At the same time, if, say, a third of the disenfranchised 500 had voted, the chances are it would have made no difference whatsoever to the result.

That being the case, I’d have thought the defeated candidates could have agreed that no useful purpose would be served by rerunning the election.

As it is, it seems entirely conceivable we’ll get an entirely different election, fought on rather different issues from the original one.

I think he meant that Hawker might be under pressure due to the management decisions going on atm… however the voting trust members are unlikely to waiver I think

 

[tom_ecfc]

The speed of this is very disappointing and multiple other issues raised, have not been resolved! Why the rush and why not cover the full review first. This brings questions in relation to previous elections as well. Why should people re-stand until the whole review is complete. Some candidates have received personal abuse following raising questions and now we know that 500 plus people did not receive their papers! Lies and misrepresentation!!

What other issues have been raised?