Interviews with BSAC candidates for Chair

[andy bennett]

Having read the interviews about the candidates in the current issue of Dive magazine, I was appalled at the partial coverage and abuse of power that took place in what should be a full and fair election.

What follows is an unedited e-mail correspondence between myself and Simon Rogerson, the editor of Dive and writer of the interviews.....

Dear Simon,

As a voter in the forthcoming elections I was appalled at the inherent bias in the 'interviews' for Chair.

As the official BSAC journal and therefore part of the formal election process, it is incumbent on Dive to give a fair and balanced view of the the candidates opinions.

What we got instead were a series of snide and self-interested opinions that failed to be balanced or fair to all the candidates involved.

Clearly, Marcus Allen is the preferred official candidate. His interview was presented in a very straight and reasonable fashion. Both Mark Bauwens and Louise Trewavas, however, were subject to snide remarks and innuendo that, given the context of an election, were tantamount to saying 'Vote Marcus Allen'. Specifically, I refer to your comments about Mark's views on clubs as a way of pulling people and Louise's supposed evasion of promoting her policies (did you bother to read her web site?)

Further backing of Dive's partial stance was given in the sycophantic interview of Phil Harrison, where it was blatantly obvious that he was backing Marcus by saying that you needed to be a member of Council before becoming Chair. This was uncritically accepted as gospel. But Harrison had no position on the Council directly prior to becoming Chair/Deputy Chair (see BSAC forums) and, indeed, has presided over the decline in membership regardless of whether this is now being reversed.

I have to say, as a trained journalist, that the standards exhibited in this piece amounted to little more than tabloid tat.

If you were writing an opinion piece then it should have been presented as such. However, these are election interviews and your opinions (and presumably those of the BSAC's?) should not infiltrate the election process.

I find it extremely disappointing that in the most interesting election in BSAC in years, with candidates who, despite your opinions, actually care about the BSAC and have new and fresh ideas, should be rubbished in this tawdry way. Ideally, I'd like this letter printed (unedited) in Dive's letter pages in next issue with an apology to Mark Bauwens and Louise Trewavas but given your journalistic sloppiness thus far, I don't hold out much hope.

Regards,

Andy Bennett Croydon BSAC (acting in a personal capacity)


Dear Andy,

Thank-you for your letter, which perplexed me on a number of levels.

Answer me this question: if, during a formal interview with an election candidate, said candidate makes a statement that is truly outrageous and obviously offensive, should the journalist include those statements in his feature?

Or this: if, during a formal interview with an election candidate, said candidate makes a very strange joke instead of of giving a straight answer, would you gloss over the response?

If you are a trained journalist, I would be fascinated to hear your answers.

With best regards,
Simon Rogerson
Editor DIVE magazine
83-84 George Street
Richmond
Surrey
TW9 1HE
Tel 020 8940 0555
Fax 020 8332 9307


Dear Simon,

Thanks for your prompt reply.

I'm not questioning what the candidates said. What I object to is the slant and your opinion that have filtered into the piece in what should be objective reporting from BSAC'S official journal during an election.

You sneer at Mark Bauwens by saying "He says he is...", questioning whether he is a former Merchant Navy Captain. You say you "cannot believe your ears" . You add that "In a strange way, Bauwens is a likeable character and has "an alarming tendency to make sweeping statements", all opinion not fact. Further examples include calling Trewavas a 'protest candidate.' Where is the evidence of this? You say that her opinions are 'baffingly positive' - this is opinion not fact. You do not nuance your interview with Allen with these subjective comments. For instance, presenting his replies only as 'fact'.

The candidates should stand or fall by what they say and it is for the electorate to decide whether they are competent or not.

On that note I 'd be grateful if you would answer the substantive points. Namely that you are seeking to influence the election result and are not giving fair and unbiased reporting to all the candidates; that the interviews were presented as news and not opinion and the role and point of the Phil Harrison interview.

I would also be grateful if you would let me know whether you're going to print my concerns unedited in the next issue of Dive.

Regards,

Andy Bennett


Dear Andy,

Thank-you for your message. The interviews were in typical news/feature style and were written in good faith. They stand in addition to the candidates' statements issued with a previous edition of DIVE. We believe in and stand by them.

We won't be running your letter, as it was intemperate and libellous. If you would like to write another letter we would be happy to consider it. As with any other letter, I am under no obligation to write to the author with details of my specific intentions for publication.

With best regards,
Simon Rogerson
Editor DIVE magazine
83-84 George Street
Richmond
Surrey
TW9 1HE
Tel 020 8940 0555
Fax 020 8332 9307

Dear Simon,

As someone who has a working knowledge of defamation law, I think it is unacceptable that as editor of BSAC's magazine and representing the public face of BSAC, you have resorted to bullying tactics to reasonable comments that have been sent in good faith. I would be grateful if you could point to the defamatory statements.

Despite my persistent questions regarding both the neutrality and fairness of the 'interviews' you have consistently failed to answer any of the points raised. I am surprised and saddened that you will not print my original views. Part of a mature organisation is to accept and debate different points of view regardless of personal viewpoints. Yet again, you have proved that neither Dive and presumably BSAC, have any interest in this whatsoever.

Given your unsatisfactory and high-handed response I am currently considering what further action to take.

Regards,

Andy Bennett

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Given your unsatisfactory and high-handed response I am currently considering what further action to take.

Well the first action you should take Andy is to apologise to Simon, then you should delete your post. Email is always =PRIVATE= unless specific permission to publish it is granted, I know for a fact that isn?t the case here.

I find your actions in publishing private email extremely distasteful, the content is irrelevant, it?s that you consider it acceptable to publish it that I?m having trouble with. I?m going to leave it here for everybody to see, just don?t be surprised if other people who you email don?t respond or give you bland and pointless replies.

Keith L

[Dave Leigh]

:=Given your unsatisfactory and high-handed response I am currently considering what further action to take.

Well the first action you should take Andy is to apologise to Simon, then you should delete your post. Email is always =PRIVATE= unless specific permission to publish it is granted, I know for a fact that isn?t the case here.

You are 100% wrong Keith. Email is not private unless specifically stated - this has been confirmed in the Freedom of Information Act.
Furthermore, even where it is private, it may be published if deemed to be in the public interest.
I think the fact that the editor of the BSAC magazine has responded in this way is a matter of public interest.
So I think the only person who should be apologising is you Keith.

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

You are 100% wrong Keith. Email is not private unless specifically stated - this has been confirmed in the Freedom of Information Act.
Furthermore, even where it is private, it may be published if deemed to be in the public interest.
I think the fact that the editor of the BSAC magazine has responded in this way is a matter of public interest.
So I think the only person who should be apologising is you Keith.

For your information David the FOI is completely irrelevant in this context - it applies to public bodies only.

It is long established and generally accepted internet protocols that state that email is PRIVATE, that isn't a matter of law, that's a matter of common decency and accepted practice.

Make whatever excuses you like David, but I maintain that the publishing of private correspondence without permission is morally WRONG, therefore I have no intention of apologising.

Keith L

[Dave Leigh]

:=You are 100% wrong Keith. Email is not private unless specifically stated - this has been confirmed in the Freedom of Information Act.
:=Furthermore, even where it is private, it may be published if deemed to be in the public interest.
:=I think the fact that the editor of the BSAC magazine has responded in this way is a matter of public interest.
:=So I think the only person who should be apologising is you Keith.

For your information David the FOI is completely irrelevant in this context - it applies to public bodies only.

I said that the public/private issue is confirmed by the Freedom of Information Act - in other words that it has shown that correspondence is not private and may be published.
Andy would of course be able to obtain this information from a private company under the Data Protection Act (section 7, just in case you weren't sure).


It is long established and generally accepted internet protocols that state that email is PRIVATE, that isn't a matter of law, that's a matter of common decency and accepted practice.

I'm glad that you agree it isn't law then. It's also a generally accepted protocol, a matter of common decency and accepted practice that a publication representing an organisation should show a degree of impartiaility during an election.


Make whatever excuses you like David, but I maintain that the publishing of private correspondence without permission is morally WRONG, therefore I have no intention of apologising.

Quite the opposite. I think it is entirely in the public interest to know that the editor of the BSAC magazine responds to questions in this way. It is morally commendable to post this information. Well done Andy!


Keith L

[Alex Gooderham]

While I do not wish to get involved in the discussion of was it right or wrong to publish the emails, I do feel that it was not good judgement to publish the articles/interviews in the first place.

Since joining BSAC in 1993 I cannot recall such a series of articles/interviews ever appearing, in any diving magazine, let alone our own (impartial)in house magazine. I just hope that those who participate in the election have already done so, so as not to be unduly influenced by what might be considered a highly biased piece(although to be honest, if you are being interviewed, keep you mouth shut and let the interviewer think you are stupid, rather then opening it, and proving it).

My worry is that BSAC has never been overwhelmed with volunteers for the higher positions, and consequently the electorate does not usually have a broad choice of candidates to choose from. An article like this could easily deter good, honest motivated people who are not well known already within BSAC from standing in future elections.

Alex Gooderham

[Robert110]

Hey Keith tell me this, of course if you dont mind,

How do you feel about the article in DIVE ?
Do you think it was fair, Balanced even appropriate ?. I mean you attack Andy but dont mention the article. What are your personal views on it ?

BY THE WAY ANDY well said mate. Excellent Post.

The article in Dive was disgusting.

Awaits a reply ?????

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

Hey Keith tell me this, of course if you dont mind,
How do you feel about the article in DIVE ?
Do you think it was fair, Balanced even appropriate ?. I mean you attack Andy but dont mention the article. What are your personal views on it ?

I thought that it was no more or less balanced than any such article that you read in any magazine. In the end it's down to personal perception, the journalist was reporting how they perceived the candidates, all of the interviews were recorded BTW.

As for people complaining that Phil shouldn't have a view - as the Chairman who has basically turned around the BSAC I can't think of a better person to express a view! Those of you who know Phil and have spoken to him will know one thing - he is absolutely dedicated to the BSAC and his only interest is to continue our progress and make the club stronger. As such he said who, in his opinion, was the best person to do that.

Just remember - whatever is printed about anything... somebody will complain, somebody will say either the BSAC message isn't being promoted enough or that it's too BSAC. No doubt if nothing had been printed we would get complaints as well.

So my personal view... a lot of fuss about nothing.

Keith L

[Gary Cameron]

If I was one of the candidates who was not Marcus Allen, and I was elected. I might consider one of my first tasks as getting rid of a bias magazine and replacing with a new one.

Hell hath no fury as a candidate scorned in a DIVE report.

Well maybe.

Gary

[Iain T]

If I was one of the candidates who was not Marcus Allen, and I was elected. I might consider one of my first tasks as getting rid of a bias magazine and replacing with a new one.

Especially if you have worked for a rival magazine....

[John Bantin]

From a purely pragmatic point-of-view, it does seem rather risky for DIVE to come out in favour of one of the candidates because another MIGHT win and then there would be red faces all round.

[Robert110]

Keith maybe Im wrong. but it is either balanced or not. It cant be more or indeed less balanced ?

[Dave Leigh]

I thought that it was no more or less balanced than any such article that you read in any magazine. In the end it's down to personal perception, the journalist was reporting how they perceived the candidates, all of the interviews were recorded BTW.

I noticed that Louise has put her interview on her site, <a href="http://www.betterbsac.com/interview.html" >http://www.betterbsac.com/interview.html</a> . It's long but it makes interesting reading.

[TerryH]

:=I thought that it was no more or less balanced than any such article that you read in any magazine. In the end it's down to personal perception, the journalist was reporting how they perceived the candidates, all of the interviews were recorded BTW.

I noticed that Louise has put her interview on her site, <a href="http://www.betterbsac.com/interview.html" >http://www.betterbsac.com/interview.html</a> . It's long but it makes interesting reading.

Very interesting reading. Lots of very positive comments which
for some reason escaped the Dive article.

TerryH

[SDB66521]

No one anything to say?
why have you all gone quite when hit with facts?

[Andy Wade]

No one anything to say?
why have you all gone quite when hit with facts?



What?
At half past ten on a Friday night?
Leave it a couple of days. Anyone not getting 'aled up' will be going diving tomorrow and/or Sunday... or a Dad staying in.... again.
;-)


.

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

No one anything to say?
why have you all gone quite when hit with facts?

Well... I guess that I am just stunned into silence by the astounding fact that journalists never actually print every word that is said to them. I am sure that some amazing conspiracy has been unearthed here - exactly the same thing could have happened to all of the candidates!

How shocking - journalists actually summarising interviews into a coherent story and fitting it into the editorial space provided, whatever next!

K

[Darren Woodward]

Keith,

When you make these comments in reply to an individuals observations about an article in DIVE, do you do so as web moderator, private individual or member of BSAC council?

Regards

Darren

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

When you make these comments in reply to an individuals observations about an article in DIVE, do you do so as web moderator, private individual or member of BSAC council?

You choose - take your pick. Of course if I say nothing then that's wrong as well, or do you think I should hold different views for each position?

What I posted in this case was my personal view : a lot of froth and noise about nothing at all. It doesn't matter what is published in Dive, people will whinge about it, just as they would whinge if nothing at all was published. Ask me as a Council member and you will get EXACTLY the same response - because believe it or not I do have slightly more important BSAC business to attend to.

Keith L

[John Bantin]

A long time ago, probably before many of the current BSAC officers had even taken up diving, I spent some time with a chap from the RN who told me about some joint discussions between the RN and other interested parties including the BSAC. He said that the BSAC fielded a different person every time they met for these discussions but those different people always seemed to have one thing in common: They took everything personally.
Is this a pre-requisite for being an officer of the club?
You don't have to dislike someone just because you have differing opinions.

[darren woodward]

You choose - take your pick. Of course if I say nothing then that's wrong as well, or do you think I should hold different views for each position?

What I posted in this case was my personal view : a lot of froth and noise about nothing at all. It doesn't matter what is published in Dive, people will whinge about it, just as they would whinge if nothing at all was published. Ask me as a Council member and you will get EXACTLY the same response - because believe it or not I do have slightly more important BSAC business to attend to.

Keith L

As a council member, I think you should not attack someone for their personal opinion on matters associated with the election. To do so could be seen as the council endorsing one candidate over another. The council in my opinion should not campain for or endorse any candidate. You should restrict your campaigning to you own position.

If you reply as a moderator you should do so in an impartial manner stating what is not acceptable, showing no bias.

If you reply as an individual then you are free to speak your mind, but you shoud identify yourself as such. To use your red signature with the BSAC tag, clearly identified yourself as a council Member.

[benpanter]

As a council member, I think you should not attack someone for their personal opinion on matters associated with the election. To do so could be seen as the council endorsing one candidate over another. The council in my opinion should not campain for or endorse any candidate. You should restrict your campaigning to you own position.

At what point in this thread did Keith attack someone on matters associated with the election? Sure, he criticised someone and stated strongly that (and I absolutly agree) posting private email to a public forum is morally wrong. That isn't really attacking someone for their personal opinion on _matters_associated_with_the_election_ is it?

I personally think the DIVE article was unbalanced - unfair to the candidates that weren't Marcus. I'd like to think that anyone reading it could have worked that out for themselves. I don't feel that it justifies publishing private correspondance.

Ben

[SDB66521]

I am sure that some amazing conspiracy has been unearthed here - exactly the same thing could have happened to all of the candidates!

How shocking - journalists actually summarising interviews into a coherent story and fitting it into the editorial space provided, whatever next?

Could have, but DOES NOT appear to have happened.
And I'm fairly certain space was not an issue here.

Steve

[darren woodward]

The following was posted by KL,

"Well... I guess that I am just stunned into silence by the astounding fact that journalists never actually print every word that is said to them. I am sure that some amazing conspiracy has been unearthed here - exactly the same thing could have happened to all of the candidates!

How shocking - journalists actually summarising interviews into a coherent story and fitting it into the editorial space provided, whatever next!"

I feel that the tone of the post was attacking the orignal poster for simply pointing out the lack of balance in DIVE. It shows a total lack of respect and insinuates that the orignal poster was naive.


A council members should NEVER attack someone publicly for voicing an opnion.

A moderator should simply point out forum policy and either remove a post or not.

A private indvidual can say whatever they want (within the bounds of normal behaviour and the forum rules)

[Nigel Hewitt]

A council members should NEVER attack someone publicly for voicing an opnion.

I'm not sure....

If I was to start posting thoughts that BSAC had become an evil empire, HQ should be blown up with the staff still inside and everyone qualified to Advanced Diver or above hanged in the streets I would expect the council, the moderator, Keith as an individual, my GP and the Police to take a seriously dim view of it.

[darren woodward]

:=A council members should NEVER attack someone publicly for voicing an opnion.

I'm not sure....

If I was to start posting thoughts that BSAC had become an evil empire, HQ should be blown up with the staff still inside and everyone qualified to Advanced Diver or above hanged in the streets I would expect the council, the moderator, Keith as an individual, my GP and the Police to take a seriously dim view of it.

OK, for voicing a valid opinion about a legitimate subject.

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

I feel that the tone of the post was attacking the orignal poster for simply pointing out the lack of balance in DIVE. It shows a total lack of respect and insinuates that the orignal poster was naive.

Subjective - as was the original post. You could of course read it as putting an alternative view just as forcefully as the original view was put, but that of course would be subjective as well.

A council members should NEVER attack someone publicly for voicing an opnion.

I do not subscribe to the view that my badge of office should be a "Kick Me" T-shirt and a target on my backside :-)

A moderator should simply point out forum policy and either remove a post or not.

If only it were that easy! I very, very rarely remove posts (apart from SPAM), I haven't had to moderate anybody for ages. It's drifting OT, but IMHO a moderators job is just to "be there" and ideally PREVENT it getting to the stage of teddies flying around and posts being deleted.

A private indvidual can say whatever they want (within the bounds of normal behaviour and the forum rules)

Last time I posted as a private individual I got accused of abusing the forum for my own gain :-)

The reality of it is Darren is that I'm damned if I do, damned if I don't, whatever I post somebody will object/think I could have done it better. That goes with the territory, but do you wonder why some people are so reluctant to post?

I don't work like that, I take the rough with the smooth, I have always promised to keep in touch with the membership and that is exactly what I do. But what you get from me is an honest opinion, I dont beat about the bush, as the Council geek WYSIWYG and this one bites back - always has done, always will do.

We'll have to agree to differ on this one Darren, if you're after some placid front man who doesn't actually say what he's thinking... then sorry, you've got the wrong guy in the job.

Cheers

Keith L

[benpanter]

The following was posted by KL,

"Well... I guess that I am just stunned into silence by the astounding fact that journalists never actually print every word that is said to them. I am sure that some amazing conspiracy has been unearthed here - exactly the same thing could have happened to all of the candidates!

How shocking - journalists actually summarising interviews into a coherent story and fitting it into the editorial space provided, whatever next!"

I feel that the tone of the post was attacking the orignal poster for simply pointing out the lack of balance in DIVE. It shows a total lack of respect and insinuates that the orignal poster was naive.

Get your story straight. Are you offended that Keith objected to the posting of a personal email correspondance or that he has an opinion on the magazine article? The post you quote is refering to a question from SDB66521

"No one anything to say?
why have you all gone quite when hit with facts?"

A council members should NEVER attack someone publicly for voicing an opnion.

I don't belive he did. He suggested that it was pretty objectionable to post private correspondance. When asked what he thought of the full text of the interview, he answered.

A moderator should simply point out forum policy and either remove a post or not.

Rubbish. Keith is human and I'm perfectly happy with him declaring his opinion. I'd be offended if it was one rule for him and one for everyone else, but it isn't.

A private indvidual can say whatever they want (within the bounds of normal behaviour and the forum rules)

Did the post get modified? Did it get removed? No. These are 'moderating' actions.


I stopped reading these forums a few years ago because I found the KL/BSAC-bating hotmail-account posters plain boring. I hope it doesn't go back to that just as I was starting to get involved again. Keith does a fine job and although I disagree with one or two of his opinions I don't dissaprove of his moderation/posting policy here.

[Keith Lawrence(BSAC)]

I stopped reading these forums a few years ago because I found the KL/BSAC-bating hotmail-account posters plain boring. I hope it doesn't go back to that just as I was starting to get involved again. Keith does a fine job and although I disagree with one or two of his opinions I don't dissaprove of his moderation/posting policy here.

Thanks for that Ben - appreciated. By all means disagree, tell me when I've got it wrong... but apart from saying nothing for fear of upsetting somebody (somewhere) I shall keep on doing what I have been doing all of these years becuase it seems to work :-)

Cheers

Keith L

[SDB66521]

I stopped reading these forums a few years ago because I found the KL/BSAC-bating hotmail-account posters plain boring.

If you had bothered to look or even email, you'd find this poster had a genuine AOL account and email address!
Steve

[Dave]

I see no reason why you should not be able to post as anyone else, but don't you have 2 registrations exactly for the reason for differentiating between personal posts and those being given as a BSAC respresentative?

Dave

[matt]

If you had bothered to look or even email, you'd find this poster had a genuine AOL account and email address!

Your profile shows no email address and 3 active posts, the first of which was provacative.

It looks like your only interest here is to stir things up. Please don't bother the regulars are perfectly capable of doing that for themselves. Of course if I have you all wrong and you want to take a useful part in this forum, let me be the first to welcome you. History would indicate that such is quite unlikely.

[matt]

I personally think the DIVE article was unbalanced - unfair to the candidates that weren't Marcus.

Unless all the candidates publish the transcripts of their interviews we really will not know exactly what the extent of any bias was. I have talked/corresponded with at least three of those interviewed and I was not at all surprised at what was reported. You only have to look at how Keith has been treated on this thread to realise that a few years on council could teach you to be careful with what you say.

If in the course of an interview the candidate is careful to respond in a neutral manner and it is reported as such, is that biased? On the other hand if a candidate repeatedly sidesteps questions and is reported as being evasive, is that biased?

I'd like to think that anyone reading it could have worked that out for themselves. I don't feel that it justifies publishing private correspondence.

Agreed. Maybe I am cynical, but the accusations of bias appearing on all the forums, from mainly one post wonders, leads me to think that their are some dirty tricks going on outside the BSAC and Dive camps. To be honest I will be glad when the political wranglings are over for a while.

[benpanter]

:=I stopped reading these forums a few years ago because I found the KL/BSAC-bating hotmail-account posters plain boring.

If you had bothered to look or even email, you'd find this poster had a genuine AOL account and email address!
Steve

It wasn't you I was replying to.

[Allan J Bretherton]

:=You choose - take your pick. Of course if I say nothing then that's wrong as well, or do you think I should hold different views for each position?
:=
:=What I posted in this case was my personal view : a lot of froth and noise about nothing at all. It doesn't matter what is published in Dive, people will whinge about it, just as they would whinge if nothing at all was published. Ask me as a Council member and you will get EXACTLY the same response - because believe it or not I do have slightly more important BSAC business to attend to.
:=
:=Keith L

As a council member, I think you should not attack someone for their personal opinion on matters associated with the election. To do so could be seen as the council endorsing one candidate over another. The council in my opinion should not campain for or endorse any candidate. You should restrict your campaigning to you own position.

If you reply as a moderator you should do so in an impartial manner stating what is not acceptable, showing no bias.

If you reply as an individual then you are free to speak your mind, but you shoud identify yourself as such. To use your red signature with the BSAC tag, clearly identified yourself as a council Member.

The whole of council is up for election so by default, council is not endorsing any particular candidate. However, this is an election and Keith is totally within his rights as a member of BSAC to voice his opinion. Why should he be any less privileged than any other member of BSAC?

[Darren Woodward]

The whole of council is up for election so by default, council is not endorsing any particular candidate. However, this is an election and Keith is totally within his rights as a member of BSAC to voice his opinion. Why should he be any less privileged than any other member of BSAC?

I have no problem with any individual member voicing an opinion about the election. All I asked was for Keith to clarify if his responce was as a council member, moderator or private BSAC member.

If he replied as a council member, then surley as the council have collective responsibility, are we to assume that the council has endorsed the view that the article was unbiased, or that, as Keith has stated several times on other posts, that you have to have served on council before standing for chairman. My veiw is that the council should not endorse any candidate and should appear neutral.

Keith is welcome to campain for himself or any of the candidates he would like to see in any elected position, but I feel that when he does so he should do so from the position of a private BSAC member. I do appreciate that Keith has a very difficult job to do, and will not always please everyone all the time. But this year the election debate has become very heated. We need a cool head to keep control and to ensure that all is fair towards all candidates. Due to Keiths dual role I strongly feel that he should identify in what capacity he posts so as to prevent any allegations of bias.

[matt]

If he replied as a council member, then surley as the council have collective responsibility, are we to assume that the council has endorsed the view that the article was unbiased, or that, as Keith has stated several times on other posts, that you have to have served on council before standing for chairman. My veiw is that the council should not endorse any candidate and should appear neutral.

I don't recall anyone saying previous council experience is a prerequisite for the chair. What Keith, Phil (in the Dive article) and past and present council members (on this forum) have said, is that they believe previous council experience to be highly desirable in a chairperson. Some people would seem to think this is a conspiracy, personally I think it is merely stateing the obvious.

Due to Keiths dual role I strongly feel that he should identify in what capacity he posts so as to prevent any allegations of bias.

Keith is trying to say is that whichever hat he happens to be wearing the head underneath is still his. Possibly he could modify his language dependant on the profile he is signed in as, but everyone knows who he is anyway so it would be rather pointless (IMVHO).

[John Bantin]

Just for the sake of balance: I would say that Ian Irving made an excellent Chairman. His experience as a member of the board of a raft of public companies gave him the knowledge to delegate and the club moved on apace under his guidance.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could get such a statesman-like figure at the head again? Previous experience on council or not?

[Allan J Bretherton]

Just for the sake of balance: I would say that Ian Irving made an excellent Chairman. His experience as a member of the board of a raft of public companies gave him the knowledge to delegate and the club moved on apace under his guidance.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could get such a statesman-like figure at the head again? Previous experience on council or not?

For once, I really agree with John