A few of the anti-Trustee brigade have commented elsewhere on the lack of mention on WSRA+ of the recent letter from WSRA Chairman Peter Chidzey to the WSR Plc made in reply to the Plc’s earlier letter to the WSRA. Both letters were made public.

One reason why we haven’t commented is because WSRA+ exists to ensure the membership get to see stuff they might otherwise not see. Peter Chidzey’s letter to the Plc was included in the AGM/EGM papers recently sent to every WSRA member and so we need not draw their attention to it.

Another reason for not commenting is due to several “events” happening at the moment involving legal activities and we are keen not to get involved, beyond simply reporting.

Finally, all of us deserve a break and one of the WSRA+ members is doing just that, enjoying some time with his family, but still managing to do a few “WSR things”.

One of those “WSR things” has been a rather frenetic email exchange of views with the Trustees. Sadly in our view, the response from the Trustees has been a total refusal to budge on any issue and a total refusal to take up any of a number of radical proposals.

Another of those “WSR things” is collating, agreeing and posting this very article in which the WSRA+ team wish to state:

  • We feel the publication of the Plc’s letter to the WSRA was not helpful. The matters raised could and should have been dealt with face-to-face.
  • We feel the publication of the reply from Peter Chidzey was equally not helpful. As above, the matters raised could and should have been dealt with face-to-face.
  • As we believe the Trustees represent the membership, we are appalled at the contents of Peter Chidzey’s letter and doubly appalled that it was made public. We fully respect the right of the Trustees to defend the work of the Trustee Board and the various administrations, but for goodness sake deal with these matters face-to-face.
  • We hope the membership will have prepared some truly serious questions to ask of the Trustees at the forthcoming AGM/EGM.

So it is not the content of either letter we are concerned about – that is a matter for the parties to resolve together – but the publication of both letters which has brought the obvious difficulties, whoever is right or wrong, into the public domain.