On 6 Aug 2012, at 08:11, WilliamH wrote:
Because the blog post response to The Daily Telegraph
article wrote that "“The Board is united in the view that this decision does not
affect his role as a Trustee of the charity."
Then again my conclusion was only an inference based on a sequence of events. I take it
you still stand by that comment?
Indeed, his role as a trustee was, and still is, unaffected by arbcom's decision. It
was his role as Chair that (sadly) became untenable.
Thanks,
Mike