Had Jeremy Corbyn lost the vote with as big a margin as the vote at the SRA (NPC) meeting went last night forget his resigning, he would have left the country and sought refuge in Moscow. But even it was a one sided affair with the vote did going 387 for and three against with two abstentions (unaudited as time of publishing), the meeting was not without drama.
Following the Chairman’s report, not too sure if he actually concluded his presentation, one of the ‘group of 30’ took centre stage much to the irritation of the assembled crowd, undoubtedly an SRA partisan gathering. Before proceeding with his long winded argument he categorically stated he had resigned from the CRA and fully supported the SRA. Well?
The basis of what he had to say was mainly legal interpretation of the various resolutions. It is fact that anything legal has two sides, the opposing attorney’s points of view. So raising these issues at a gathering of home owners on holiday after a long challenging year was tantamount to committing verbal suicide and he was heckled accordingly.
The points he raised were all of a technical nature and would have kept the respective sides lawyers in business and Blue Label scotch well into the future. So what if a meeting is held when the majority of the owners are available, or the i’s weren’t dotted and the t’s not crossed? Surely all effort should be aimed at Saving St Francis, not trying to destroy it by nit-picking technicalities of the law.
Possibly the vote count would have been a lot more overwhelming but for a large portion of the partisan crowd leaving the meeting as the gent argued what were important matters only to himself and a handful of his supporters.
One aspect that again came out of the matters raised from the floor is how little some of those who resent what the NPC is doing for the town understand what the SRA is all about. The SRA manifesto is clear enough for even an intelligent Grade 8 pupil to understand so why then are these questions raised not only at meeting but on social media as well? The SRA is not intended to deal with blocked toilets or potholes or similar, that is what the municipality is for. Maybe the Mao had a point?
But maybe it is not all over just yet and there must be concern that this is now going to go legal. Hopefully common sense will prevail and money that could be spent on helping the cause no spent on defending the cause. Surely with overwhelming support shown at the meeting and in the vote added to the fact it was voted for by a majority in a democratic process.
Surely it is time for the CRA to lick it’s wounds and withdraw the legal action against the Kouga municipality and for both side to bury their hatchets not in each other’s heads but in the interests of unity and work together towards a common cause. It can be done!