Why is there a Clash between the Tutors and the AFC Part 2

Back to the main thread, I do find it fascinating that so little has been made of Paul Jacobs resurrection and its impact upon events.
Way back I wrote this

Sat 21 Sep 2024 - 7:14
I never asked this question; how did a tutor expelled from the AFC by due process under the last President. A tutor who, even I in Australia had heard of, from a propensity to cause emotional harm to students ( I have several credible reports of this from students who never complained, but would back my statement if needed), who even I had heard reports of their abuse of other tutors (again from students who never complained, but would back my statement if needed), suddenly get immediately reinstated to the AFC by this President on her election.

Not just reinstated but back on the AFC Committee and is now Course Convenor. Someone who has become effectively untouchable unless the President falls.

Additionally late in Part 1 of this thread an ex NEC member provides us with the official reason for his exile

PJ was removed from the AFC committee, when the NEC of the time found out he was deliberately blocking potential tutors that he did not like or want there. He picked tutors to assess potential that he knew would fail them for him, so that they didn't get to work there. But he picked on the wrong person, who found out about his devious ways, fought it and won.

Naturally if the SNU wished to challenge this comment then the whole of this action would be discoverable, in full, which could cause some embarrassment to the current NEC and President, in the light of their decision to reinstate.

It does appear to me that the 20 tutor issue may well be entwined with some aspects of their interactions with this tutor. Any thoughts? Were there any particular issues about PJ that may have caused the problems to come to a head from February this year? Maybe this is so entwined in teh 20 tutor dispute that we will never know the answer.

I raised this just before the AGM noting that "The amazing thing is if this action against the Tutors had been left until September, after the election, this President and Tutor could have had a free run of between 2-4 years to act. Timing is all and legend has it that revenge is a dish better eaten cold.".

It does appear that the dispute has not gone away and now we seem to have the re appearance of Simon James and Brian Robertson as a force in play, presumably on side with PJ and JW, but the question may be, are they?. Early on, when Simon stepped in to help fill gaps after the 20 Tutors withdrew I remember receiving a suggestion that they were standing ready to pick up the pieces and protect the AFC.

I feel that things are about to get interesting again because the matter between the AFC and the 20 Tutors must play out to an end game soon. Christmas may get in the way but the wheels are turning, even if at glacial speed (and somewhere it appears those same slow wheels may be turning at the charities commission).

Janhar wrote:The tutors who have been personally criticised recently on this forum are all dedicated to the continuance of the SNU and upholding high standards of mediumship. They deserve respect for that even if we cannot support their stance about other things.

I am not so convinced. There is a power grab and it is not pretty and it has nothing to to do with dedication to the SNU. The SNU is the vehicle and the opportunity.

Let me give you one example: SJ in a discussion regarding the tutors dispute a while back, publicly stated that the tutors in dispute were his friends. He has not reached out to any of them to this day!

Admin wrote:Back to the main thread, I do find it fascinating that so little has been made of Paul Jacobs resurrection and its impact upon events.
Way back I wrote this

Sat 21 Sep 2024 - 7:14
I never asked this question; how did a tutor expelled from the AFC by due process under the last President. A tutor who, even I in Australia had heard of, from a propensity to cause emotional harm to students ( I have several credible reports of this from students who never complained, but would back my statement if needed), who even I had heard reports of their abuse of other tutors (again from students who never complained, but would back my statement if needed), suddenly get immediately reinstated to the AFC by this President on her election.

Not just reinstated but back on the AFC Committee and is now Course Convenor. Someone who has become effectively untouchable unless the President falls.

One can only assume it is since JW became President. She has always been unpopular within the college due to her volatile and unpleasant nature towards many colleagues and staff. PJ is one of her few friends and she had to surround herself with people who would support her, plus in return regain their power.

It does appear that the dispute has not gone away and now we seem to have the re appearance of Simon James and Brian Robertson as a force in play, presumably on side with PJ and JW, but the question may be, are they?. Early on, when Simon stepped in to help fill gaps after the 20 Tutors withdrew I remember receiving a suggestion that they were standing ready to pick up the pieces and protect the AFC.

Not only have they intensified their rescue mission of the SNU but are now primary members of the ministers Committee. However, their star power at the college is diminished, by comparison to 10 years ago.

I feel that things are about to get interesting again because the matter between the AFC and the 20 Tutors must play out to an end game soon. Christmas may get in the way but the wheels are turning, even if at glacial speed (and somewhere it appears those same slow wheels may be turning at the charities commission).

The NEC were blindsided by ignorance/arrogance and some radio silence for a few weeks. Radio silence means regrouping and it is all full on. The SNU is going to have a job to know what to do, if 20 tutors make a legal case. That's another 20 for the roll call if that is confirmed. What a dreadful and irresponsible record for a President - the likes of which we have never seen before in SNU history.

The SNU has its card marked with the Charities Commission now and this will remain on record for reference of any future misdemeanours. They have demonstrated conflicts of interest and this will always remain on record with the commission. This is actually very serious and means they have a marked card in a governmental organisation.

I believe most of the current NEC are decent people and should now stand up to her, or walk out en masse! They and all the other members deserve much better. As for the college - it would need a complete reset with new faces at the helm.

Unless words can somehow magically change the way current members feel about the SNU/AFC set up then it really doesn't matter what you, what I or what anyone else feels the NEC (or anyone else for that matter) should do.

As for the Findlay College and the SNU I did suggest several months ago, and also later, that root-and-branch reform of the whole shebang might be the best way forward.  Mind you I don't actually believe it's likely to happen. Since the start of the tutors dispute, several months ago now, I can't think of anything positive having happened.  

It's a sad and depressing situation showing little hope of improvement.

Silence in the face of issues like these never brings about change. I think it is very positive that we have more people on the forum joining in the discussion when something happens to create new interest.

mac wrote:Unless words can somehow magically change the way current members feel about the SNU/AFC set up then it really doesn't matter what you, what I or what anyone else feels the NEC (or anyone else for that matter) should do.

As for the Findlay College and the SNU I did suggest several months ago, and also later, that root-and-branch reform of the whole shebang might be the best way forward.  Mind you I don't actually believe it's likely to happen. Since the start of the tutors dispute, several months ago now, I can't think of anything positive having happened.  

It's a sad and depressing situation showing little hope of improvement.

It matters to have a voice on something you feel passionate about Mac. Who knows, the impact this forum is making for those who feel they can't voice their thoughts, or simply gauging opinions. Making a difference is not the only important thing - as welcome as it would be.

Indeed you did say that root and branch reform was the only way forward and I am sure many agree with you on that score. I know I do.

I guess I approach life not telling others what they should do.

mac wrote:I guess I approach life not telling others what they should do.

Neither do I but I can share an opinion - a belief and always open to another point of view.

Post by notabigjump Wed 11 Dec 2024 - 18:54

Admin wrote:
Back to the main thread, I do find it fascinating that so little has been made of Paul Jacobs resurrection and its impact upon events.
Way back I wrote this

Sat 21 Sep 2024 - 7:14
I never asked this question; how did a tutor expelled from the AFC by due process under the last President. A tutor who, even I in Australia had heard of, from a propensity to cause emotional harm to students ( I have several credible reports of this from students who never complained, but would back my statement if needed), who even I had heard reports of their abuse of other tutors (again from students who never complained, but would back my statement if needed), suddenly get immediately reinstated to the AFC by this President on her election.


Not just reinstated but back on the AFC Committee and is now Course Convenor. Someone who has become effectively untouchable unless the President falls.


One can only assume it is since JW became President. She has always been unpopular within the college due to her volatile and unpleasant nature towards many colleagues and staff. PJ is one of her few friends and she had to surround herself with people who would support her, plus in return regain their power.

I suppose one of my big questions is with 20 Tutors now seemingly gone, we are aware from postings on this thread that JW has said (not officially of course) she will never allow them back, and another who left later on, Matthew Smith. Clearly there must be a shortage of tutors.

From the quote above we know that PJ has, in the past, sought to influence who gets to become tutors. I would assume that, now as a key part of the AFC Committee and the Course Convenor he has a much better chance to influence those decisions. I would also imagine that he may have a great chance to make decisions about who can run the courses that are arranged. I wonder if that is now being seen with more courses being run between 5 and another (Simon James, Brian Robertson, Paul Jacobs, Jackie Wight, Su Wood plus one other)

I should think this is not great news for those who are not within PJ's list of preferred Tutors even though they signed the new contract and decided to remain as tutors. Not likely to or intending to go to the AFC I have not looked at the courses listed for 2025, and the people chosen to run them.

I note just before Christmas the AFC is running a bargain priced course run by Paul J , Jackie W and Su W. It runs close to Christmas Eve I wonder if it will be Christmas at the College for some?

As to Canada and Simon James/Brian Robertson there seem to be people left behind to keep that running until they decide what, finally to do.

I note we have now had over 61,000 views of this thread and 1,122 posts over the combined Part 1 and 2 . Somedays I come on and there are over 100 guests on line, mainly viewing the thread and even at quieter times it is often well over 20

In terms of my post before the last one about the number of views etc.

Now imagine that something goes wrong with the new situation that a complaint gets made, on a substantive matter, against PJ either as a tutor or course convenor.

It would create a very interesting legal conundrum that the new President and her NEC ignored proven issues with that individual to re appoint him. Not sure how that would play out especially with the material that may be playing through the courts if those legal cases are on their way. Could be some fascinating repercussions for all parties. I do hope that said person comports himself absolutely impeccably and in the best interests of all parties.

Admin wrote:In terms of my post before the last one about the number of views etc.

Now imagine that something goes wrong with the new situation that a complaint gets made, on a substantive matter, against PJ either as a tutor or course convenor.

It would create a very interesting legal conundrum that the new President and her NEC ignored proven issues with that individual to re appoint him. Not sure how that would play out especially with the material that may be playing through the courts if those legal cases are on their way. Could be some fascinating repercussions for all parties. I do hope that said person comports himself absolutely impeccably and in the best interests of all parties.

Part of me thinks that with so many viewing (including the NEC, AFC tutors and family members) they must all be on their best behaviour publicly. However, after the way they treated the 20 tutors and have left them out of future plans and courses so far, nothing would surprise me. Real, honest efforts to mediate have clearly failed. The tutors have behaved impeccably and kept to their agreement and been left waiting for months. So nothing surprises me anymore and leaves no confidence that any complaint will be dealt with fairly.

I have heard some recent student feedback about this particular tutor relating to his behaviour and it is not good. In a reasonable company they would probably be dismissed. If the students speak up, it might help right the wrongs. Although, they would probably have to do it publicly, as the SNU track record is abysmal on dealing with people of influence, when someone complains to them. Why do so many have to live in fear of speaking against bullying and insults? (Rhetorical).

NotaBigJump wrote:
Part of me thinks that with so many viewing (including the NEC, AFC tutors and family members) they must all be on their best behaviour publicly. However, after the way they treated the 20 tutors and have left them out of future plans and courses so far, nothing would surprise me. Real, honest efforts to mediate have clearly failed. The tutors have behaved impeccably and kept to their agreement and been left waiting for months. So nothing surprises me anymore and leaves no confidence that any complaint will be dealt with fairly.

I have heard some recent student feedback about this particular tutor relating to his behaviour and it is not good. In a reasonable company they would probably be dismissed. If the students speak up, it might help right the wrongs. Although, they would probably have to do it publicly, as the SNU track record is abysmal on dealing with people of influence, when someone complains to them. Why do so many have to live in fear of speaking against bullying and insults? (Rhetorical). [/quote]

The difficulty that I see with students who have concerns speaking up publicly about a tutor's behaviour, if they are currently members of the SNU, is that the normal and accepted procedure would be to first submit their concern/complaint to the SNU seeking redress or resolution. Of course, in doing that, they should not then make any public statement until the matter has been considered and a decision made regarding their concern/complaint.

The problem, however, with this approach is that in all likelihood the current powers that be in the SNU would demand the signing of non-disclosure agreements until such time as the matter had been determined. Thus effectively silencing anyone wanting speak openly about their experience with the behaviour of any particular tutor.

The alternative facing such concerned people, if they are currently members of the SNU, would be to resign their membership in order to speak out publicly. Of course, that approach leaves the whole complaint/concern issue as unproven - he said - she said - who knows what is the truth - which also leaves the offending party, if there be one, free to continue to do whatever it is they do that students find problematic.

It also leaves the ex-SNU member at risk of being excluded from their local SNU church because the SNU power brokers decide that such ex-members are bringing the SNU into disrepute by expressing complaints/criticisms/concerns publicly, and without having submitted their complaint to the SNU. There would also be a risk that a person, about whom the said students or members or ex-members made critical remarks, might be open to legal action against them for their verbal or written statements in the public quarter.

It seem to me that with the current SNU you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. There is no clear means by which concerns can be safely expressed.

Now it is my recollection that at the last AGM a motion to have a new Complaints procedure was approved. One that, in theory, at least, was intended to overcome some of the recent difficulties in making complaints and seeing those complaints processed in a timely and fair manner.

I wonder, has anything yet be done to implement this new Complaints procedure? If so, what? If not, why not?

Are any current concerns or complaints still being processed under the old procedural process and rules? If so, that must also give rise to further concerns about how the SNU is currently being operated.

Lis wrote:NotaBigJump wrote:

The difficulty that I see with students who have concerns speaking up publicly about a tutor's behaviour, if they are currently members of the SNU, is that the normal and accepted procedure would be to first submit their concern/complaint to the SNU seeking redress or resolution. Of course, in doing that, they should not then make any public statement until the matter has been considered and a decision made regarding their concern/complaint.

The problem, however, with this approach is that in all likelihood the current powers that be in the SNU would demand the signing of non-disclosure agreements until such time as the matter had been determined. Thus effectively silencing anyone wanting speak openly about their experience with the behaviour of any particular tutor.

The alternative facing such concerned people, if they are currently members of the SNU, would be to resign their membership in order to speak out publicly. Of course, that approach leaves the whole complaint/concern issue as unproven - he said - she said - who knows what is the truth - which also leaves the offending party, if there be one, free to continue to do whatever it is they do that students find problematic.

It also leaves the ex-SNU member at risk of being excluded from their local SNU church because the SNU power brokers decide that such ex-members are bringing the SNU into disrepute by expressing complaints/criticisms/concerns publicly, and without having submitted their complaint to the SNU. There would also be a risk that a person, about whom the said students or members or ex-members made critical remarks, might be open to legal action against them for their verbal or written statements in the public quarter.

It seem to me that with the current SNU you are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. There is no clear means by which concerns can be safely expressed.

Now it is my recollection that at the last AGM a motion to have a new Complaints procedure was approved. One that, in theory, at least, was intended to overcome some of the recent difficulties in making complaints and seeing those complaints processed in a timely and fair manner.

I wonder, has anything yet be done to implement this new Complaints procedure? If so, what? If not, why not?

Are any current concerns or complaints still being processed under the old procedural process and rules? If so, that must also give rise to further concerns about how the SNU is currently being operated.

Such pertinent points Lis and at a time when news has reached many that some Individual Church and SNU Members have had their titles and membership removed from the SNU and are now banned from entering any SNU church.

Here lies a problem, if your membership is revoked, any complaint to the SNU is not followed if you are no longer a member. A clever way of ensuring the new complaints system cannot be faulted!

This dictatorship cannot continue as a religion. In other religions it is no problem to criticise. For example in the UK, the Archbishop of Canterbury has resigned for turning a blind eye to a former Bishop who was abusive. The news channels have had many members of the said clergy airing their view, disagreeing and expressing their disgust at the said Archbishop. They have spoken directly and clearly the C of E accepts this is normal democratic behaviour. It's a pity the SNU can't manage that and now find themselves embroiled in legal disputes with former esteemed tutors.

I know people who only kept their membership on legal advice from their solicitors so that their complaints were not jeopardised. It seems the SNU/NEC has learned from those complaints. Oh what a wonderful spiritual organisation it's turning out to be.
How much more information do those who can do something want before they act?
All those who have been bullied and thrown out of their churches should report them to the Charities Commission and other organisations, yes it might sound a lost cause but every single complaint is another nail in the proverbial coffin of those running the circus formally known as the SNU/NEC.
Here's a thought - what if those that have been thrown out of churches and the Union stand up and tell all, then when those running the present circus are finally disposed, those members will be welcomed back into the fold with all awards intact, after all that's what the President did when she waltzed in. How much more can those in charge do to bring the SNU and Spiritualism into disrepute before something is done.???

Problem is that this is all still going on with people locked out of their churches, no reason given, SNU membership cancelled and awards lost. I also wish they would all stand together and report the abuse once they get over their astonishment and devastation that after running their churches and in most cases bullding them to a thriving community, the next minute church locked, and thrown out of SNU without any notice, hearings or even an email. I think the only Presidents of Churches that are in rented premises and have nothing to do with the SNU are safe. Other than that guys, look out.

OnlyVisitingEarth wrote:I know people who only kept their membership on legal advice from their solicitors so that their complaints were not jeopardised.  It seems the SNU/NEC has learned from those complaints.

Absolutely - strip their membership so they can't complain. The deviousness is unsurprising all things considered.

 

How much more information do those who can do something want before they act?  

It beggars belief. I have no idea how they sleep at night.

Here's a thought - what if those that have been thrown out of churches and the Union stand up and tell all,  then when those running the present circus are finally disposed, those members   will be welcomed back into the fold with all awards intact, after all that's what the President did when she waltzed in.  How much more can those in charge do to bring the SNU and Spiritualism into disrepute before something is done.???

I hope they do. Truth is being covered up and it is a disgrace. This is going to look so bad on them all when it all comes out in pending legal cases. If they have any sense they could get out now, stand up to the screaming dictator and prevent bringing themselves in to disrepute too.

SNU Spiritualism is being destroyed rapidly.

The dictatorship in all of this is deplorable.
The top table is most certainly getting a name for itself, barbaric in actions. I wonder what the reasons are for this?
Going back to the statements issued on social media from the tutors taking a stance and the Spiritualist National Union. Within the statements it said there was some sort of independent complaints commissioner. Surely there should be some sort of conclusion or result by now?

notabigjump wrote:

OnlyVisitingEarth wrote:I know people who only kept their membership on legal advice from their solicitors so that their complaints were not jeopardised.  It seems the SNU/NEC has learned from those complaints.

Absolutely - strip their membership so they can't complain. The deviousness is unsurprising all things considered.

 

How much more information do those who can do something want before they act?  

It beggars belief. I have no idea how they sleep at night.

Here's a thought - what if those that have been thrown out of churches and the Union stand up and tell all,  then when those running the present circus are finally disposed, those members   will be welcomed back into the fold with all awards intact, after all that's what the President did when she waltzed in.  How much more can those in charge do to bring the SNU and Spiritualism into disrepute before something is done.???

I hope they do. Truth is being covered up and it is a disgrace. This is going to look so bad on them all when it all comes out in pending legal cases. If they have any sense they could get out now, stand up to the screaming dictator and prevent bringing themselves in to disrepute too.

SNU Spiritualism is being destroyed rapidly.

Light-Nature-Truth wrote:The dictatorship in all of this is deplorable.
The top table is most certainly getting a name for itself, barbaric in actions. I wonder what the reasons are for this?
Going back to the statements issued on social media from the tutors taking a stance and the Spiritualist National Union. Within the statements it said there was some sort of independent complaints commissioner. Surely there should be some sort of conclusion or result by now?

The SNU did say publicly, they were ensuring the complaint was independently assessed and will be reported on, when concluded. I understand that assessment should be with them now. As to who has access and what is redacted before the NEC in general have a chance to review it, is another matter. As to another public statement on the findings, we await with baited breath.

If by chance (and it is looking like a good chance at this rate) this goes to full legal proceedings, (unless the SNU issues a public statement about the independent report very soon, in the interests of full transparency), we could request disclosure at some point.

Call me suspicious but in all this time since last February, the tutors have followed all the rules as set out in the grievance procedures and have been badly let down by the speed of dealing with their complaints. All this could have been sorted out nearly a year ago, but no - drag it out, sweep under the carpet and hope it goes away!

Well, there are the lives of 20 good people who deserve to have their concerns taken seriously and not buried. They deserve to be treated fairly.

Many of us will not let it be buried! For ALL tutors, past, present and the future.

You are correct in that it has been barbaric towards the 20 tutors.

OnlyVisitingEarth wrote:All those who have been bullied and thrown out of their churches

Anniemillo1 wrote:people locked out of their churches, no reason given
church locked, and thrown out of SNU without any notice, hearings or even an email.

is all this recent activity or historical?
which churches/districts?
who are the victims?

Slatewriter wrote:

OnlyVisitingEarth wrote:All those who have been bullied and thrown out of their churches

Anniemillo1 wrote:people locked out of their churches, no reason given
church locked, and thrown out of SNU without any notice, hearings or even an email.

is all this recent activity or historical?
which churches/districts?
who are the victims?

I have heard it is very recent - no further details yet. If you remove membership, you can't make a complaint or have a right of reply. Sneaky isn't it. All I heard is they apparently spoke out about something.

Both

OnlyVisitingEarth wrote:I know people who only kept their membership on legal advice from their solicitors so that their complaints were not jeopardised.  It seems the SNU/NEC has learned from those complaints.  Oh what a wonderful spiritual organisation it's turning out to be.  
How much more information do those who can do something want before they act?  
All those who have been bullied and thrown out of their churches should report them to the Charities Commission and other organisations,  yes it might sound a lost cause but every single complaint is another nail in the proverbial coffin of those running the circus formally known as the SNU/NEC.  
Here's a thought - what if those that have been thrown out of churches and the Union stand up and tell all,  then when those running the present circus are finally disposed, those members   will be welcomed back into the fold with all awards intact, after all that's what the President did when she waltzed in.  How much more can those in charge do to bring the SNU and Spiritualism into disrepute before something is done.???

If people  have had this happen to them, it is clearly not following due process, because in any situation you must have a right to know why you have been acted against and an appeal to state your case. Unfortunately you probably will need a lawyer to act for you and the SNU have shown a willingness to throw lots of legal fees at you so you go away.

However, due process something that the Charity Commissioners will look at and we know the Commission has received complaints about the SNU. It appears they may have them on watch so a series of complaints, from those impacted by these actions is bound to create more concerns for the Commissioners. I even believe those students being impacted by tutor behaviour can happily take these to the commission, who are, I am sure, aware of all the events and the return to the AFC of one who was exiled.

Of course, if a group have been affected, or the student group might support an individual who has, harassment could be a matter for the police. Whilst I realise some may think of the damage it could cause but what of the longer term damage to the SNU if these problems are allowed to continue and people have no fair complaints procedure to support them.

I remember JW's election promise "A Complaints Procedure Fit For The Purpose" I note an ambiguity JW never said who's purpose it should be fit for!

Now I will look at the final point in my last post.

I remember JW's election promise "A Complaints Procedure Fit For The Purpose" I note an ambiguity JW never said who's purpose it should be fit for!

As Lis rightly points out whatever JW had done, before the AGM, should have been amended to reflect the extra level of control included in the motion, which was approved by the members at that AGM.

The simple motion was

3. Special Resolution requiring three-quarters majority
That Article 62 be amended by the insertion of a new paragraph (3) to read as follows:-
(3) If the Complaints Committee receives a complaint that it deems to be valid under the
Bye-laws against a member of the National Executive Committee it, in consultation with
the chief administrative officer of the Union, shall appoint a Commission of Inquiry to
investigate the complaint and report its findings and recommendations thereon to the
National Executive Committee. The Commission of Inquiry shall comply with the
procedures set out in the appropriate Bye-laws. The members of the Commission of
Inquiry shall be drawn from independent Individual Members of the Union who are
deemed to have a thorough knowledge of the Union's constitution. If the Commission of
Inquiry makes a recommendation to remove a member or members of the National
Executive Committee, a general meeting of the Union shall be convened in accordance
with the Act to vote on the removal. The motion for removal shall be a simple majority
motion with not less than twenty-eight days' notice. The complainants and the person or
persons proposed to be removed shall have the right to send written testimony before
the meeting, to give written and verbal testimony at the meeting and to have witnesses
give testimony at the meeting.
and that the succeeding paragraph be renumbered accordingly.

Now I presume no complaint has been made against an NEC Member (including as that motion does the President and Vice President) since then, because the members were specific in passing this motion that would be binding upon the NEC.

Now had there been and this procedure was then not followed than the whole NEC would be in breach of their duty to members. I am sure the legal right of a member to make a public statement that they have made such a complaint cannot be removed by an NDA just the details of the what, when and how.

I wonder if ant pre-existing complaints, which had not been resolved, should have been passed in to this new body, I am not an expert in these legal matters.

Surely this procedure will soon be tested. However, it may be difficult to persuade a Complaint's Committee, formed by the NEC, to accept a complaint against one of the NEC. Maybe the complaints Committee should have been formed as an adjunct of the trustees not the NEC to create independent overview.

notabigjump wrote:I believe there is an aspect which is highly significant and we have overlooked a major player in all of these cases. I am referring to the Vice President Marie ...

Returning to ML. In muggle land, she is a respected magistrate. A position that is only awarded to those of good character and excellent judgement. It is a position where in all walks of life she must be seen to behave impeccably and not bring the law or HERSELF in to disrepute.

She is a great asset to the SNU and also the AFC, as she is a tutor too. Her contributions to the NEC can only be assumed to be of great value and wise counsel (If she is allowed to be heard)..

Now I mentioned that people may have been dismissed without due process. If that is the case a Magistrate like ML should be aware of this legal discrepancy. So , if this lack of due process is correct, a Magistrate should, naturally, correct the error that has ocurred and advise the NEC and President of their error.

Admin wrote:

notabigjump wrote:I believe there is an aspect which is highly significant and we have overlooked a major player in all of these cases. I am referring to the Vice President Marie ...

Returning to ML. In muggle land, she is a respected magistrate. A position that is only awarded to those of good character and excellent judgement. It is a position where in all walks of life she must be seen to behave impeccably and not bring the law or HERSELF in to disrepute.

She is a great asset to the SNU and also the AFC, as she is a tutor too. Her contributions to the NEC can only be assumed to be of great value and wise counsel (If she is allowed to be heard)..

Now I mentioned that people may have been dismissed without due process. If that is the case a Magistrate like ML should be aware of this legal discrepancy. So , if this lack of due process is correct, a Magistrate should, naturally, correct the error that has ocurred and advise the NEC and President of their error.

A very good point Jim and it reminds me of a dear friend from back in the day who was unfairly dismissed from her day job as a museum manager. She was also a magistrate in Leeds and it was a big risk because she would have to step down if she lost her tribunal. Fortunately, she won her tribunal so all was well. However, it does demonstrate how the respected office of a Magistrate, comes with significant responsibilities.