[AC199]

Or do you prefer that each proposal is made workable by the very same small number of people you seem to dislike before it is put on line?

Please do me the service of finding which of my posts has me saying I dislike anyone with the time and spare money to go to AGM? I envy them, not dislike them. My suggestion is a method of getting the ability to vote to those of us with lives which preclude our attendance.

On line voting without discussion would be worse than what we have now. Many proposals are not thought through well in wording, but have the right intent. By discussion and amendment they are put right.

So, what you're saying is people have the right ideas but it needs a bit of tweaking? No shit there Sherlock, very few ideas are perfect right from the get go, that's why we should have online discussions beforehand, to change the wording to avoid situations such as the wheel sizes idea etc.

By the way, 100% of the country have the use of a postal vote so they can vote at elections at their convenience. Still we have turnouts of about 65% because people can't even be arsed to make a cross on a piece of paper and post it. What makes you think on line voting would be any better than turning up in person?

Lets ask the population shall we? Rather than the laws of our hobby be decided by those able to go, lets bring the ability to go to the masses by putting it online and have more input. The number of people lacking clarity on these issues such as Cells and wheels means more information is needed.

I've spent so long being around committees and I've seen the way they DON'T work for the last 30 years. People do get stuck in their ways, they make decisions based on too little information and too little input from others, but the attendance of the last 3 AGM's has to be a sign that more input, not less is needed. Yes the details may need tweaking, but anything has to be better than what we have with an impotent committee who's hands are tied and cannot make the changes they want to because 10 years ago someone voted that you had to be there in person to change a bloody rule.

Jim Spencer has been straight with us, its up to us to change the landscape of our sport, up to us to get changed the things that we want changing, and peoples negativity towards getting a greater input baffles me. Mark Christopher I can understand, clearly he has a huge amount of hatred towards me, strange considering I've never met the guy, but hell I rub people up the wrong way so whatever, but all I'm trying to do is give people a voice, is that really such a bad thing?