View Full Version : Qualifications for Chairman
Allan J Bretherton
08-06-2005, 14:25
The minutes of council meeting held after the AGM make interesting reading as follows:
"MKT - suggested that Council again consider a minimum qualification for candidates for BSAC Chairman. MKT asked for council to consider making a minimum level of experience or qualification compulsory for the post. A Working Group will be formed at the next meeting to review the Nomination and Voting Process"
Now, I do think we got the right chairman from the nominations received but reviewing the nomination and voting process sounds a little like a Marxist or Maoist regime rather than a democracy where the membership chooses its leaders or should we assume that the membership is not intelligent enough to make the right choice?
Any thoughts?
Allan
The minutes of council meeting held after the AGM make interesting reading as follows:
"MKT - suggested that Council again consider a minimum qualification for candidates for BSAC Chairman. MKT asked for council to consider making a minimum level of experience or qualification compulsory for the post. A Working Group will be formed at the next meeting to review the Nomination and Voting Process"
Now, I do think we got the right chairman from the nominations received but reviewing the nomination and voting process sounds a little like a Marxist or Maoist regime rather than a democracy where the membership chooses its leaders or should we assume that the membership is not intelligent enough to make the right choice?
Any thoughts?
Will be interesting as to what "qualities" they think a good chairman should have.
I mean they do not need to be an instructor or a highly qualified diver to be able to leed such an organsisation.
Surely people skills and the like are the essentials.
Richard
Allan
Nigel Hewitt
08-06-2005, 16:43
Now, I do think we got the right chairman from the nominations received but reviewing the nomination and voting process sounds a little like a Marxist or Maoist regime rather than a democracy where the membership chooses its leaders or should we assume that the membership is not intelligent enough to make the right choice?
It would be a bit naughty for the ruling Junta to set the rules for the elections and although, obviously, the NDO/NDC must be qualified up to the ears the Chairman doesn't seem to have the same imperative.
OK we want a Chairman who is committed to and experienced in the BSAC club system but if they have invested their 'club time' in organisation rather then expeditions and training they might not have a full QRB or a well rounded log book. I don't see this as a problem.
Perhaps the scary thing is the small turn out every year. It is big enough that it would be hard to muster a joke electorate to elect a joke candidate but it isn't really representative. However as the average BSAC member abstains perhaps it is good that some of us vote or it would look even more silly than it does. I like to think that it is an 'It works, why worry' abstention but I'm not sure.
We are a democracy. I could be chairman of BSAC! Well if I were fool enough to stand and you lot were fool enough to vote for me, I could. I'm not very qualified on the BSAC scale but should that stop me? If you wanted me? Conversely I'm engaged enough in small business to know I wouldn't enjoy it so I'll stick to the diving end of diving. However knowing that I could means that I am closer, more involved, than people are in large companies. BSAC is personal.
OK, I'll ask who is MKT ? Sounds like BSAC are trying to exclude certain members, if a person had the right qualities for chairman then they should be able to stand as a candidate.
Looking at the voting results it seems to me that BSAC needs to find a way to engage it's members, why aren't members voting? I have seen various discussions and on more than one occassion the subject of Dive magazine came up, BSAC needs to use the magazine more as an information tool for it's members. People complained they hadn't received their voting papers, yes I know a poor excuse but there shouldn't have been something printed on the front cover like "Voting pack inside", we should use it provide more HQ information apart from less than a page on Skills courses there is no section for new information to be passed on. Afterall it's BSAC's magazine but is full of advertising and very little contect. Perhaps the editorial staff are getting complacent as given the choice I suspect most members would opt out of receiving the magazine, for a reduction in the membership fees obviously.
:=Looking at the voting results it seems to me that BSAC needs to find a way to engage it's members, why aren't members voting?:=
Honest awnser and a possible start of a solution.
What club do you belong to? It's your club isnt it?
Your mates, buddies, social and diving friends.
If I was to change the letters of your club from BSAC 1234
to SAA 1234, would you still have the same mates, friends,
trips, etc? Awnser - Of course you would!
So do you consider yourself to be more a member of BSAC
the organisation or of your own individual club, that just
happens to be BSAC?
For most their aligience lies not with BSAC, but with their
own club.
For this massive group, BSAC is just a logo on a manual with
no relevance to them other than the framework it provides.
Ok you say BSAC does XYZ, but does this group really care?
The voting figures are prime example of what they think.
The solution? Get personal.
What if once/twice a year a BSAC rep came into your club
on club night and had a chat with all the club officers. What
if he/she updated any Instructor manuals. Talked of what's
happening. Dealt with any local issues/problems. Advised
or became a ready conduit for information bewteen branch
and HQ.
Wouldnt this very public visit start to put the human face
on BSAC? Wouldnt we then start to feel we belong to the club,
rather than just be in it?
I'm sure some area/regional coaches would do it, but if not
create a new post to assist where neccesary.
No good hiding at HQ and coming out at dive shows. BSAC needs
to get close up and personal. Then we might get a much bigger
turn-out as the perception that its "my" club grows.
TerryH
OK, I'll ask who is MKT ?
Mike Todd I should think.
Sounds like BSAC are trying to exclude certain members, if a person had the right qualities for chairman then they should be able to stand as a candidate.
As I read it the proposition is to state what those qualities are and make them prerequisite to candidature, rather than trusting to luck.
Taking on board Alan's point about the membership being intelligent and Your / Nigel / Terry's points about lack of interest from the rank and file, I can see some sense in the proposal. It's a bit like asking me to cast a vote for the England football manager. I understand the game of football so I am not entirely stupid, but I don't follow the game so I can't make an informed decision. God help our National side if I was allowed to. I would vote for David Beckham because he is the only footballer who's name I recognise. The BSAC membership are not thick but they might be somewhat ignorant.
Looking at the voting results it seems to me that BSAC needs to find a way to engage it's members, why aren't members voting?
I think it has a lot to do with the demographics of UK diving. The vast majority of divers in the UK come and go within a couple years and never make it past Sports/AOW. Neither BSAC nor diving is important enough to them to warrant much of an opinion. I believe there is a lot of truth in the saying 'You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink!' It is all well and good saying BSAC must engage it's members, but the members must actually want to be engaged.
The demographics as they are raise an interesting question concerning democracy. Should BSAC be run for the apathetic majority who come, consume and go, or the committed minority who do much of the providing (whether at branch or National level)? IMVHO it is clear that neither group wants the same things particularly.
Promotoion of the National BSAC is a good idea for all sorts of reasons but I don't think it will have the affect on voting numbers that others believe. I think electronic voting is going to make the biggest impact.
I have seen various discussions and on more than one occasion the subject of Dive magazine came up, BSAC needs to use the magazine more as an information tool for it's members...we should use it provide more HQ information...Afterall it's BSAC's magazine but is full of advertising and very little contect...
Completely agree. With so much criticism of communication Dive appears a bit of a wasted opportunity. A balance needs to be struck against content that sells magazines / advertising and content that serves BSAC / UK Clubs. At the moment the editors appear to be getting a better deal than BSAC. To be fair IMVHO the situation has improved markedly from what was offered by Diver at the time, and Dive's UK/Club content continues to improve
Perhaps the editorial staff are getting complacent as given the choice I suspect most members would opt out of receiving the magazine, for a reduction in the membership fees obviously.
Not so sure about that. Go back to the demographics. I think the vast majority of BSAC divers (less than 3 years membership) are happy enough to read anything about diving. I know it is hard for the committed UK diver to accept but we are vastly outnumbered by people that are reading the Red Sea live-a-board adventures and Shark showdowns for the first time.
Terry has hit the nail on the head - even if he does hit some computer keys in the wrong sequence!
Branches tend to be insular. Years ago when my pal Tom Burton (the easiest going man in the world) was London Regional Coach he told me that as often as not he was NOT welcome at many of the branches he visited. He was seen as interfering rather than helping!
The challenge for the BSAC is to become of real consequence to the members of those branches. People should be made proud to be a member of the BSAC again.
Members should be made to feelthey are part of something not just paying a levy like their income tax!
I do not see how limiting the choice of Chairman can help. It smacks a bit of Robert McGabe to me!
Adrian Kelland
09-06-2005, 12:20
The minutes of council meeting held after the AGM make interesting reading as follows:
"MKT - suggested that Council again consider a minimum qualification for candidates for BSAC Chairman. MKT asked for council to consider making a minimum level of experience or qualification compulsory for the post. A Working Group will be formed at the next meeting to review the Nomination and Voting Process"
Now, I do think we got the right chairman from the nominations received but reviewing the nomination and voting process sounds a little like a Marxist or Maoist regime rather than a democracy where the membership chooses its leaders or should we assume that the membership is not intelligent enough to make the right choice?
Any thoughts?
Allan
Much as I had concerns regarding those who stood as chairman, I rather think it is down to me to decide who I want to vote for out of those who present themselves.
Personally I couldn't give a monkey's regarding a Chairman's ability to dive. I do care about the person's abilty to work with and manage others. It makes sense for the NDO to be highly qualified as a diver, but not the Chairman. It could be an advantage in that conflicts of opinion regarding diving could be avoided, and thus enable the business of running the club to take priority.
To me this statement from Mike Todd looks like a proposal to exclude BSAC members from a post on the basis that the present Council does not want them there.
Would this proposal have been made had Marcus been the only nominee? I don't think so.
Adrian
Ian Wigg
09-06-2005, 12:42
What's the betting that one of the requirements will be that the candidates for Chairman must have been council members at some prior point thus stopping 'undesireable' types from standing. Or am I just beiong cynical?
Adrian Kelland
09-06-2005, 13:10
What's the betting that one of the requirements will be that the candidates for Chairman must have been council members at some prior point thus stopping 'undesireable' types from standing. Or am I just being cynical?
I'm probably as cynical about this proposal as you, but I don't think such a requirement is un-reasonable. At least you would know who you might have to work with. No point having a chair elected from nowhere who is not aware of how council runs, wishing to impose their own rule. Neither should anyone assume vice-chair should inherit the role.
However we should have the final say regarding who is elected to council in the first place. NOT council themselves.
Adrian
Ian Wigg
09-06-2005, 13:27
:=What's the betting that one of the requirements will be that the candidates for Chairman must have been council members at some prior point thus stopping 'undesireable' types from standing. Or am I just being cynical?
I'm probably as cynical about this proposal as you, but I don't think such a requirement is un-reasonable. At least you would know who you might have to work with. No point having a chair elected from nowhere who is not aware of how council runs, wishing to impose their own rule. Neither should anyone assume vice-chair should inherit the role.
However we should have the final say regarding who is elected to council in the first place. NOT council themselves.
Adrian
As far as I can see the only benefit in having such a requirement would be that the candidates would have an idea of the amount of time and comittment required for the role but that is all. If we are a truly democratic club then anyone should be free to stand and if any of the other council members don't like OUR choice then they can either abide by the majority decision or resign.
Ian
Adrian Kelland
09-06-2005, 14:56
:=:=What's the betting that one of the requirements will be that the candidates for Chairman must have been council members at some prior point thus stopping 'undesireable' types from standing. Or am I just being cynical?
:=
:=I'm probably as cynical about this proposal as you, but I don't think such a requirement is un-reasonable. At least you would know who you might have to work with. No point having a chair elected from nowhere who is not aware of how council runs, wishing to impose their own rule. Neither should anyone assume vice-chair should inherit the role.
:=
:=However we should have the final say regarding who is elected to council in the first place. NOT council themselves.
:=
:=Adrian
As far as I can see the only benefit in having such a requirement would be that the candidates would have an idea of the amount of time and comittment required for the role but that is all. If we are a truly democratic club then anyone should be free to stand and if any of the other council members don't like OUR choice then they can either abide by the majority decision or resign.
Ian
Fair point Ian.
I would be far more concerned about ANY new chairman, previous council or not, attempting to stamp their authority (which they don't really have) and ideas on those who have been working for some time to progress BSAC. New ideas are welcome, but neither should the baby be thrown out with the bathwater.
Adrian
Well ? it?s good to see people exercising their right to free speech. Some people seem to be getting an awful lot of ?exercise? out of this what with jumping to conclusions, getting on their high horse and throwing their indignation around. But cut out the rhetoric and the silly emotive words being banded about please and step back at bit.
I backed Mike Todd (MKT) when he raised this at Council, now I?m going to tell you why.
First of all you need to understand the role of Council, their purpose and how they see their role. Council do =NOT= own the BSAC, you do - you, me and all of the members. Your current Council are the current custodians of the club, you elected them to look after it. It is their job to protect it, improve it, then pass it on in good shape for others to look after. In their task of protecting the club it is their job to identify possible risks to the club and to minimise those risk.
Mike has identified just such a risk and raised the issue for discussion. In doing so he was acting in his role as an elected Council member, had he not done so then I would probably have raised it myself. So if anybody is trying to tell me that we shouldn?t even be talking about it then I am going to disagree with you, because having identified what some of us believe is a very serious risk to the club we would be negligent NOT to raise it IMHO.
First of all look at your own individual branches, look at your committee who guide your own club. Now ask yourself the question : who would YOU prefer to run your local club ? somebody who knew the club, knew the local issues, understood the running of your branch? Or would you prefer to get someone from off the street who had never even spoken to your existing committee to have a go? At local level I have seen ineffective branch chairman virtually destroy a branch, I have also seen visionary members who knew the branch turn it around and rescue a club. Now scale that up to the entire BSAC.
People both over-estimate and under-estimate the power and the influence of a chairman. They tend to over-estimate the power that a chairman has, a chairman can?t just say ?I?m going to order you all to do xxxx?, a chairman is basically a team leader, they cannot hope to do it all themselves, their job is to work WITH a team. But people also under-estimate the influence of a chairman, they under-estimate the influence that a chairman has to completely destroy a team, they under-estimate the external influence that a chairman has to do immense damage to an organisation. (If you want a good example of that power then the word ?Ratner? immediately springs to mind).
That is the risk that I personally see for the BSAC, that is why I backed Mike with his initiative. My personal view is that the BSAC itself is actually ?at risk? from a clueless and ineffective chairman destroying the very way that the club works and doing immense damage to us by damaging our external relations. I do not want that to happen to the BSAC, that is why I feel that we should openly discuss this issue.
So don?t we trust the members? Of course we do ? it?s your club. But not enough of you take an interest, that is a FACT that exists and contributes to the very risk that I am seeing. Get a big enough name, sing a good enough song, spend enough on publicity ? and at present ANYBODY can be chairman of the BSAC. Pot luck whether you?d still have a BSAC a year or so down the line or what state it was in. Sorry, but that matters to me ? I want to see the club thrive and grow. So cut the rhetoric and the rants, look at this logically ? I maintain that we are right to raise it and it is something that we should be discussing.
My personal view? Personally I don?t think that we should be electing a chairman at all, or any officer position for that matter. What we should be doing is electing Council members, then we should trust that Council to elect their chair and their officers. That is the way that it works in the commercial world, that?s the way that the government of the country works (OK, maybe I shouldn?t hold that up as a good example!), that?s what some other organisations do. The best people to elect their team leader (chair) IMHO is the people who would have to work with them, it is absolutely essential that the chair is a team leader with the respect and backing of their team.
Apart from membership of the club there should be no restrictions whatsoever on who could stand for Council, that is and should remain open to all. If you really do insist on electing a chair on a member vote then I feel very strongly that recent (within 5 years?) Council experience is pretty essential, the only problem with that approach is that most of us with that Council experience know what?s involved and that?s why we don?t stand for Chair :-)
So OK, let?s discuss this ? but let?s discuss it rationally please. I feel that Council should be looking at this just as our minutes say, even if the outcome of that is ?no change? I personally feel it would be negligent of us if we didn?t discuss it.
Regards
Keith L
BSAC Council Member ? but giving my personal view
So is all this a symptom or a cause of the problem?
This is like saying you cannot be the chairman or manager of the club unless you have played in the team.
It appears to disqualify some very competent and experienced chairmen from standing as Chairman of this club.
I would say that it would be safer to get the constituency on side. The club is only vulnerable to take-over by a rogue chairman because so few people bother to vote.
So is all this a symptom or a cause of the problem?
It is certainly not a cause because poor election participation is a problem that has been with us for many years.
This is like saying you cannot be the chairman or manager of the club unless you have played in the team.
No, it is saying that you cannot be an effective chairman unless you know how to be a team player and at least have some clue what the actual game is.
It appears to disqualify some very competent and experienced chairmen from standing as Chairman of this club.
What does? Nothing has been decided, it hasn't even been talked about.
I would say that it would be safer to get the constituency on side. The club is only vulnerable to take-over by a rogue chairman because so few people bother to vote.
Thank you John. You acknowledge the potential risk. So we can do without the rhetoric whilst we also acknowledge that risk and investigate possible ways to minimise it.
Keith L
Allan J Bretherton
10-06-2005, 09:10
If you really do insist on electing a chair on a member vote then I feel very strongly that recent (within 5 years?) Council experience is pretty essential, the only problem with that approach is that most of us with that Council experience know what?s involved and that?s why we don?t stand for Chair :-)
Hi Keith,
I know this is still a discussion point and that the views expressed are yours and not necessarily councils but if this approach had have been adopted (within 5-years) then I don't believe Phil Harrison could have been chairman and lets face it, he did a pretty reasonable job for someone with no experience of council.
Cheers.....Allan
darren woodward
10-06-2005, 10:05
First of all you need to understand the role of Council, their purpose and how they see their role. Council do =NOT= own the BSAC, you do - you, me and all of the members. Your current Council are the current custodians of the club, you elected them to look after it. It is their job to protect it, improve it, then pass it on in good shape for others to look after. In their task of protecting the club it is their job to identify possible risks to the club and to minimise those risk.
Using the analogy that MPs represent the constituency that elected them, it is their responsibility to act following the wishes of thoes people. Now I accept the council has the job to raise issues which could affect the club, bringing these issues up for debate is important. Equally the council, as I see it, have the responsibility to follow the wishes of their constituents, if after a consultation period the general members want the no change, the council should follow and vote accordingly.
So far people appear to be slightly negative about the proposed change to the prerequisites for standing for the Chair. Can we trust our elected representatives to follow the wishes of the members?
Allan J Bretherton
10-06-2005, 10:41
:=First of all you need to understand the role of Council, their purpose and how they see their role. Council do =NOT= own the BSAC, you do - you, me and all of the members. Your current Council are the current custodians of the club, you elected them to look after it. It is their job to protect it, improve it, then pass it on in good shape for others to look after. In their task of protecting the club it is their job to identify possible risks to the club and to minimise those risk.
:=
Using the analogy that MPs represent the constituency that elected them, it is their responsibility to act following the wishes of thoes people. Now I accept the council has the job to raise issues which could affect the club, bringing these issues up for debate is important. Equally the council, as I see it, have the responsibility to follow the wishes of their constituents, if after a consultation period the general members want the no change, the council should follow and vote accordingly.
So far people appear to be slightly negative about the proposed change to the prerequisites for standing for the Chair. Can we trust our elected representatives to follow the wishes of the members?
Hi Daren,
Council have to follow the wishes of the membership. This proposal (not even a proposal at this stage, just a discussion topic) would be a change to the constitution and would require a majority of 75% of those voting to be carried
Cheers.......Allan
Neil Carter
10-06-2005, 11:13
Hi Keith,
Glad to see you made it back on to Council thus maintaining at least some regular input from "them" to "us"on these forums/fora.
My personal view? Personally I don?t think that we should be electing a chairman at all, or any officer position for that matter. What we should be doing is electing Council members, then we should trust that Council to elect their chair and their officers. That is the way that it works in the commercial world, that?s the way that the government of the country works (OK, maybe I shouldn?t hold that up as a good example!), that?s what some other organisations do. The best people to elect their team leader (chair) IMHO is the people who would have to work with them, it is absolutely essential that the chair is a team leader with the respect and backing of their team.
Strange this. I was just putting pen to paper, or rather finger to keyboard, to express just this point of view. Certainly such as of the Membership who manage to vote should always and only be the electors of Council, but like you, and agreeing with your examples, I also think that the election having been run, it should then be up to the Members representatives, who have become Council, to then elect their Chairman. IMVHO, or I suppose I could say, naive opinion, this would seem to solve all of the concerns inherent in both this thread, and in Mike T's concerns in asking Council to discuss the matter.
Apart from membership of the club there should be no restrictions whatsoever on who could stand for Council, that is and should remain open to all. If you really do insist on electing a chair on a member vote then I feel very strongly that recent (within 5 years?) Council experience is pretty essential, the only problem with that approach is that most of us with that Council experience know what?s involved and that?s why we don?t stand for Chair :-)
I have no problems with this POV either.
Just my 2p's worth.
NC
Hi Keith,
I know this is still a discussion point and that the views expressed are yours and not necessarily councils but if this approach had have been adopted (within 5-years) then I don't believe Phil Harrison could have been chairman and lets face it, he did a pretty reasonable job for someone with no experience of council.
I am expressing a purely personal view Allan, other Council members (and all of you) may have different views and that is why I feel it should be discussed.
I am somewhat surprised by your comments relating to Phil (you of all people!). As you are well aware Phil had experience of a previous Council at the time that he took over. He was in fact elected to Council as the vice-chairman. Phil is actually a shining example of how Council selecting a chair from the elected members really does work. If you want yet another example Marcus was elected by Council as vice-chair when you stood down.
It is for this reason that I personally favour elections to general Council rather than specific positions, that Council then chooses its officers. The other advantage of that approach is that you do not loose people who could otherwise make a contribution, if you want an example of that then look at when Edward stood for Honorary Secretary, he lost that vote and was lost to Council.
Another problem with putting some kind of pre-requisite on chair is this : consider the hypothetical case of an ordinary member standing for chair, no previous BSAC Council experience but previously was a well known chair of another voluntary members organisation similar to the BSAC. We would love to have such a person on Council, if they stood for chair then we could still loose one potentially valuable Council member if they stood against somebody. Better for Council to have both of them IMHO and then elect who is to be chair from within the Council group ?
I feel that we should have this discussion and have it in a civilised manner. Recent history has shown us that electing an ?off the street? chair may not always be the best solution. It could work, but it could also be disastrous. I think that we should at least acknowledge that potential risk and look at ways where we may be able to minimise it.
Regards
Keith L
Ian Wigg
10-06-2005, 13:24
... So don?t we trust the members? Of course we do ? it?s your club. But not enough of you take an interest, that is a FACT that exists and contributes to the very risk that I am seeing. Get a big enough name, sing a good enough song, spend enough on publicity ? and at present ANYBODY can be chairman of the BSAC. Pot luck whether you?d still have a BSAC a year or so down the line or what state it was in. Sorry, but that matters to me ? I want to see the club thrive and grow. So cut the rhetoric and the rants, look at this logically ? I maintain that we are right to raise it and it is something that we should be discussing. ...
Sorry Keith but you appear to be saying that the members can only be trusted to vote if that vote is for the status quo. If this is a democratic club then each and every one of us should be able to express our opinion on the direction we feel it should take and, if enough of the members agree with that opinion (no matter how radical it may be) that person should be given the mandate. If not enough people are willing to take an interest then surely that must be taken as an indictement of the council members for failing to appreciate the cause of the apathy and then taking appropriate steps to remedy it.
I do wonder if part of the problem (and I apologise if this has been gone through before) is that BSAC is simply too large for the existing structure and might possibly benefit from approach where representatives are elected at more local levels (where members would feel connected to the outcome, with regional and national council members drawn from these. That way any national council would be much more likely to be representative of the whole membership than it presently may be (I say may be because due to the small percentage of votes cast we cannot say for certain).
Just my two penneth woth anyway
Ian
Andy Wade
11-06-2005, 06:30
Terry has hit the nail on the head - even if he does hit some computer keys in the wrong sequence!
Branches tend to be insular. Years ago when my pal Tom Burton (the easiest going man in the world) was London Regional Coach he told me that as often as not he was NOT welcome at many of the branches he visited. He was seen as interfering rather than helping!
The challenge for the BSAC is to become of real consequence to the members of those branches. People should be made proud to be a member of the BSAC again.
Members should be made to feelthey are part of something not just paying a levy like their income tax!
I do not see how limiting the choice of Chairman can help. It smacks a bit of Robert McGabe to me!
McGabe?
Is that Robert Mugabe's Scots relative?
LOL ;-)
:=Terry has hit the nail on the head - even if he does hit some computer keys in the wrong sequence!
:=
:=Branches tend to be insular. Years ago when my pal Tom Burton (the easiest going man in the world) was London Regional Coach he told me that as often as not he was NOT welcome at many of the branches he visited. He was seen as interfering rather than helping!
:=
:=The challenge for the BSAC is to become of real consequence to the members of those branches. People should be made proud to be a member of the BSAC again.
:=
:=Members should be made to feelthey are part of something not just paying a levy like their income tax!
:=
:=I do not see how limiting the choice of Chairman can help. It smacks a bit of Robert McGabe to me!
McGabe?
Is that Robert Mugabe's Scots relative?
I wondered if anyone would get my subtle humour!
Maybe this is not a site for a laugh!
LOL ;-)
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.