Sheffield Wildlife Trust, well-known for being somewhat challenged in the nous department, has now gone to the top of the Own Goal League.
Readers should at this point hold on to their seats lest they damage themselves by rolling on the floor.
SWT have declared that they are excluding 5 people from their meetings about Blacka Moor. Of course these people are those most likely to disagree with SWT's policy. If these five do not attend the meetings it means that they are likely to be two cats short of a quorum if you don't include the teamaker.
Blacka Blogger is one of those who has been excluded. It is of course my independence that is most resented, as always by those who blindly follow orthodox creeds. Should I resent this dreadful affront? Well yes and no.
No, because I wouldn't give a mouldy bilberry on a cow pat for the privilege of attending any more of their absurd meetings.
Yes, because in the course of taking this action SWT has notified a collection of councillors and the local police that I was aggressive, insulting and disruptive at a recent meeting. They have since admitted that this was wrong and some kind of mistaken identity thing when various people said my contributions were polite and measured. But they are so stiffly embarrassed about all this that they can't bring themselves to cut their losses and retract 100%. So they still maintain I was disruptive. It's just that you have to redefine 'disruptive' to understand it.
So this, as I understand it, is 'disruptive' according to SWT. If someone raises something at a meeting that is not on the original agenda of that meeting and you make a contribution on the new strand, even if the chairman has allowed this, then you are disturbing the flow of that meeting. This means that you are classed as disruptive and entitles somebody else who was not at that meeting to feel justified in reporting this to the police.
God help us all!
1 comment:
In the past I've run up against this type of mentality. I once worked for a company where the person in charge of the parts department told me I couldn't have any more parts. His reasoning was "If I give you parts, then I will not have any parts in my parts department."
How can one argue with an argument like that? I can understand how, if you are faced with this same mentality, one could get a bit excited when speaking. I hope you are allowed back into the meeting because if no one speaks up we are all lost.
Post a Comment