Andrew Zigmond wrote:Just playing devil's advocate for a moment, could CJ's supporters and apologists possibly explain exactly what Lara has done wrong, apart from raising a legitimite concern about whether the T shirt was appropriate (and I'm sure she would happily concede there were arguments for and against). Could they also explain why, instead of politely begging to differ, CJ decided to take his grievance to the press - thus ensuring that Lara's `punishment` outweighed any `crime`.
I explained at length in Open Letter thread why I disagreed with this analysis. It seemed redundant to post it again, since no new facts have been added. I don't believe a "crime" occurred, I believe it was an "accident" because of a misunderstanding. Lara seems to have suffered as a result, as has CJ, probably to a lesser extent. Life is not fair, people do suffer disproportionately to their actions.
Generally I stand by what I have said about this incident before, except where I have been corrected on factual points. The one thing I regret saying was right at the beginning. I thought David Welch, as congress manager, was the was the person responsible for ensuring misunderstandings did not occur. In fact it seems now who had that responsibility was unclear. Stewart Reuben has been mocked relentlessly for saying he thinks he could have prevented the misunderstanding getting out of hand. But to my mind, it reflects well on his years of experience. Whether he is right or not, the congress manager should believe that he has both the authority and the accountability for such things. If we need to change how the British is run, so the congress manager is truly in charge, I think we should.
I am reluctant to talk about the financial matters in relation to t-shirtgate since I don't believe CJ has refused to apologise because he is in Keene's pocket, as others seem to be implying. I believe it is because he has nothing further to apologise for.
Financial matters are important of course, if CJ has done anything illegal or immoral then I would consider it, at the least, a resigning matter. But if the point is he took full credit for arranging Darwin's sponsorship, when in fact he should only have taken partial credit, I do not consider that a charge of the utmost seriousness. There does not seem to be any dishonesty on his part.
I am uncomfortable with how Alex is arguing his case. His campaign for public support, based on unclear and unrevealed facts, has damaged the ECF. If he has evidence of wrong doing I think he should present it either to the board, or if he has lost confidence in the board, an EGM.