The Andrews Report

[jayceebee31 761]

I've asked this question a number of times, most recently in the Don Argus thread, and wanted to post it here to see if I can get an actual response.

Can someone please explain exactly how everyone knows it was shelved?

If people don't know exactly what was in it, how can they be so sure that none of the recommendations have been undertaken? Or is it easier to assume the MFC are useless in all departments.

As far as I've seen it's basically been stated by Caro that the report had been shelved and that's been taken as gospel ever since.

This is an honest question, as I have no inside info or anything like that I don't know if it has or hasn't, but I'm also sceptical as to why it is so widely claimed if so few people have read it.

The only way you will definately get an answer is if you ask the question/s at the next AGM.I feel ,along with others that your questioning is very pertinant therefore I expect you to ask it then.

[Gouga 570]

And THAT is the point.

So why anyone on this forum is stupid enough to reference the report, it's contents, the "fact" it has been shelved, or the "fact" it's contents have not been acted upon, is well beyond my comprehension...

*

Stupid? Why can't people merely refer to something that has been reported. It is a personal choice whether you believe it or not.

The Club, rightly or wrongly, has not been transperant in relation to the content of the report. Therefore we rely on what is being reported until we are told otherwise.

I don't think that somebody is being stupid because they speculate as to what MIGHT be the facts. Isn't that the point of Demonland? No one knows for sure if Tom Scully is going to GWS, but that hasn't stopped anyone from speculating about whether or not he is all year.

[Guest Gareth Keenan]

Stupid was maybe a bit harsh.

Foolish is maybe better.

I find it hard to comprehend that anyone is foolish enough to just blindly believe what they are told, with no scrap of evidence to back it up, when the source is someone with a conflict of interest - that being, to whip up a big story into a media frenzy that they an milk multiple articles out of.

I don't have a great issue with speculation. It's when the rumours of the Andrews reports, as reported by Caroline Wilson alone, with no evidence or detail, is presented as fact.

And the Tom Scully thread IS stupid.

Very, very stupid.