ANTHONY THOMAS HOLDS THE MORAL HIGH GROUND
As ACCA members know the ACCA officials have used the official magazine,
press releases and briefings to attack one of the EGM organizers, Anthony
Thomas. The ACCA have also sent officials on overseas trips to bribe members
and secure their vote. Messrs. Thomas and Cruse have acted in accordance
with the bye-laws and secured the EGM. Howver, they have been denied any
space in the official magazine.
In the interests of democratic debate, ABBA is happy to publish the
following response from Anthony Thomas. Should ACCA officials respond,
we would also be happy to publish their views.
Anthony Thomas's response to the ACCA is follows:
It is astonishing that the ACCA need to send a 20 page document to members
when all that is asked for from the proposers of the EGM motion is the
setting up of an independent commission. If it takes 20 pages
of rebuttal, then clearly there is something to-hide.
What a pity that the ACCA find it necessary to personalise the matter of
the EGM. Regretfully, the ACCA have launched into personal attacks which
is most unfortunate. Furthermore the ACCA document contains misstatements
and this is becoming the hallmark of ACCA attacks. The continual
reference in the press to "this EGM has been called by broadly the
same grow of people" is an outright lie. No previous EGM has been supported
by past council members (CLICK HERE FOR MORE).
No previous EGM had such large support from outside the UK. Even the ACCA
have now admitted in their document that only 15 of the total of 114 proposers
supported any of the previous EGM.
Given that there are 20 pages of rebuttal it seems odd that the ACCA have
totally failed to deal with a number of important issues. These have
been totally ignored. There is no reference to the current position on
the "merger" (CLICK HERE), no reference
to any current legal disputes, and there are probably several (ACCA
SUED IN INDIA;ACCA FACES £300,000
LAWSUIT; ACCA ADMITTED PLAGIARISM), the
document is silent on the whole question of subsidised fees for China (CLICK
FOR MORE), and no reference to poor relationship
with Members of Parliament (CLICK FOR MORE)
. This is An organisation which prides itself on openness. Why did
the ACCA fail to produce another few pages to deal with these very important
matters. Quite simply the ACCA have something to hide and are not
straight with members. There is not much difference between 20 and
The constant reference in the ACCA statement that I refused to meet John
Brockwell is a lie. The position was made perfectly clear and 1 tried
desperately over the course of a month to meet him. He knows the
ACCA have put a "spin" on his correspondence with me, which if examined
would show the ACCA as disingenuous.
Friday 21 January 2000