Will the EVDA-UK lie to try to keep power? It seems so!

Well it seems that they will. No surprise really.

They know that they have a weak argument and what with brian Orr lobbying against the committee and now me doing the same they are desperate so what harm can some lies do against someone who has little support in the EV workd as it is?

Well, the harm is all to the EVDA-UK and not me!

It shows just what lengths they will go to to try to hold on to control.

They have made a number of statements which are completely untrue here:

https://speakev.com/threads/evda-uk-full-members-vote-of-no-confidence.4169/#post-49598

It reads:

Many people have criticised the EVDA-UK for not being sufficiently open
and not including the membership in the details of what goes on between
the committee members. In the spirit of openness it seems only fair to
give a brief summary of the recent discussions. If Paul Churchley feels
that the following is inaccurate then please nominate an independent
third-party who can review the recent e-mail messages and correct any
mistakes.

Early in the evening of 7th October Paul Churchley e-mailed the
committee members with a link to a post on LeafTalk that disparaged the
idea of EV clubs. He stated that this credibility issue was why
Plug-In-Britain was planning to become a registered charity.

Over the next few hours all of the committee members, and Paul,
discussed this issue by e-mail and no other issues to any great depth
except the related issue of whether a membership fee should be charged
to help with the costs involved. The general view of the committee
members tended to be that perhaps this was not the best time to convert
to a charity and perhaps we should concentrate primarily on other tasks,
predominantly increasing membership levels and ensuring that we offered
those members tangible benefits.

No other proposals were made in this e-mail discussion (other than a few
very vague examples of the sort of things that were already being
working on) but Paul insisted that EVDA-UK needed to be a charity to be
taken seriously. Because of this the secretary asked Paul to produce a
plan of action for turning the Association into a charity and to present
that to the committee so that we could decide together if this was
something we could take forward.

Paul seemed then to suggest that he needed to take control of the EVDA
so that he could be able to move it forward in line with the same vision
he had originally had for PiB. He stated that he needed the committee
to support him on this if he were to do anything. The committee
reiterated that we would like Paul to prepare a proposal for converting
the Association to a charity and we would discuss that in a telephone
meeting we were planning to have with him this weekend.

Much of this is just fabrication and much of it is misleading .

The charging of fees was mentioned just a couple of times in passing. It was not a
substantive part of the discussion. The bulk of the discussions was me
trying to get the committee to see the benefit of radical change and to
buy into my vision. The issue of a membership fee wasn’t mentioned more
than once or twice!!!

There was no suggestion they are working on much of what I proposed. In fact they suggested that much of it was beyond their funding or resources.

At no time did I ever suggest that I “take control” of the EVDA-UK or
even suggest it. I must ask you withdraw that statement. I consider that
defamatory and a lie. You have no email that even suggests that because
it is not something I said, suggested or would suggest. It might be how
you took it but that is your paranoia.

The EVDA-UK has a committee. I wanted to work within that committee,
either as a member or not, and every one of my emails said that or
strongly suggest it. It is an outrage they are prepared to say this in a
pathetic attempt to attack me because they can’t handle the fact…
they lost my support and that clearly hurt.

In fact, I suggested at first that I should be on the committee but
backed down from that when confronted with an alternative of working as a
non-committee member of the team until they and the membership had
gained confidence in me. How that can be insisting I “take over” I have
no idea. This is just pathetic and bordering on defamatory!

You can read my full replies there but needless to say… this represents a standard of behaviour that is not appropriate for any committee running any organisation. It demonstrates their ineptitude which was also confirmed with the open letter they published to Baroness Kramer. How anyone could publish such a letter and expect to maintain any degree of credibility I don’t know.

So vote as you will… but remember… it isn’t a vote for Brian to vote “No Confidence”… it is a vote against the committee.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.