I would take anyone to task who states that the Trust board is in anyway representative of the support.
It is quite fair to state that they can't hope to suggest that they represent anything more than the boards opinion on this subject. The rest is an assumption on the behalf of the Trust board. As they have have not consulted their members. That's not to say that they can't go off on any tangent should they wish in the name of the Trust.
When most people joined the Trust, it was an effective conduit for communicating the supports concerns. Even at its height, it never carried a large enough membership to state that is was representative of the support. Since its inception, it has enjoyed varying degrees of commitment from the support. But there can be no argument that the poorly attended meetings, loss of the seat on the board, and steadfast refusal to ask its members for direction, has now rendered the Trust at it's lowest ebb. There has not even been a reasonable uptake in membership for years now. I would hazard a guess that with deaths and a lack of renewals, that it has lost members. I am more than happy to be shown facts that contradict that opinion.
So my argument is simple. If the support is behind the Trust as suggested by some on here, answer these simple questions.
1. Explain the virtual lack of attendance at Trust public meetings (unlees there is a non Trust speaker) pre COVID
2. Explain the mere handful of supporters that turned up at the Moat House, for the Trusts flagship meeting on ownership models
3. Explain why even though the Trust board has not kept its wishes hidden, why this resulted in virtually no new memberships
I have said repeatedly. I am not anti the Trust. But I will plug away at this point until the cows come home. The Trust board has been an architect in its demise, by not consulting and canvassing the membership.
As a lifetime member +1
