letter from 20 per cent co owners to call EGM

[smutcakes]

1 hour ago, KittenKong said:

 

I believe you are being deliberately obtuse as I have repeatedly explained why that is not the case.

 

 

 

The resolution will be specific, of course, but the advance agenda will not, for the reason I explained: anyone can stand up to the very last minute before the vote.

 

 

 

This may indeed happen but it is not correct. Certainly the part about proxies being assigned at the meeting is totally illegal and leaves full scope for all sorts of trickery and vote manipulation which is something that the condo act goes to some length to prevent (trickery and manipulation being common here).

 

So perhaps before you call me shady it might be an idea to examine the beam in your own juristic person's eye?

Just a practical question, if you are in an EGM and one person declares they want to vote on something or a handful do and a handful dont, how in practical terms to you envisage controlling a General Meeting and what is added to vote on a what is not? Should the management have 20 extra voting papers for every possible agenda that could be raised?

[Delight]

4 hours ago, smutcakes said:

Just a practical question, if you are in an EGM and one person declares they want to vote on something or a handful do and a handful dont, how in practical terms to you envisage controlling a General Meeting and what is added to vote on a what is not? Should the management have 20 extra voting papers for every possible agenda that could be raised?

   At the end of the meeting the chairman can use his/her discretion to allow topics which are voiced in 'Any other Business' to  be voted on or not

Big issues ,such as replacing the JPM are simply too complex to be dealt with in this way. Remember you cannot just sack a JPM -they have to be replaced. The rules for this are well documented

Even if the JPM was worthy of being sacked the follow thru from that has to be in place.

Therefore a good chairman would not allow a vote (i.e replacing  or sacking  without  follow thru replacement a JPM  )and  refer the matter  elsewhere. Typically to the next committee meeting.

This section of the meeting must be reflected in the minutes

 

It is the chairman's decision. Nobody in the meeting can over rule that decision

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by Delight

[lkn]

9 hours ago, KittenKong said:

You misunderstand the purpose of a proxy […]

I understand perfectly well that the Thai Condo Act describes it as written permission for someone else to vote on your behalf.

 

I was replying to your argument that “if people doesn’t even bother to send a proxy…” — what I am saying is that how would I know if I actually need to send a proxy, if the agenda sent to me is misrepresenting the issues to be voted on? Anyway, we are repeating ourselves, no need for further follow up on this.

 

9 hours ago, KittenKong said:

It would certainly be fair and open, but it is not a legal requirement as far as I can see. And anything that is not specifically prohibited is permitted.

This is not really how it works. When you have a clause that says (paraphrasing) “agenda with reasonable details must be sent to co-owners 7 days in advance” you can certainly make the legal argument that if reasonable details have not been provided to co-owners 7 days in advance, the meeting cannot pass any resolution on the item.

 

Btw: You seem to believe that only the chairman can set the agenda for the AGM. There is no law preventing co-owners from submitting items to be discussed prior to the AGM, and co-owners should have a reasonable idea about when the AGM will be held (1-4 months after end of their financial year), so if you have proposals, send them to the committee shortly after the end of the financial year and ask for confirmation that it gets added to the agenda, if they fail to confirm this, send the proposal directly to the co-owners.

 

[lkn]

10 hours ago, inThailand said:

A falang JP Mgr needs a work permit. The Land Office, banks and others will not accept his signature. 

Sorry, but please provide your source when you claim such things, because work permits fall under Ministry of Labour, and the Land Office nor the bank would know whether or not the Ministry of Labour require work permit for being JPM.

 

I have a written response from the Chiang Mai Land Office that says that their department does not have an issue with a foreigner being appointed JPM and our bank already allow foreign committee members bank access, so I fail to see them extending this to a foreign JPM.

 

 

[inThailand]

42 minutes ago, lkn said:

Sorry, but please provide your source when you claim such things, because work permits fall under Ministry of Labour, and the Land Office nor the bank would know whether or not the Ministry of Labour require work permit for being JPM.

 

I have a written response from the Chiang Mai Land Office that says that their department does not have an issue with a foreigner being appointed JPM and our bank already allow foreign committee members bank access, so I fail to see them extending this to a foreign JPM.

 

 

Ok, please name the falang that is a JPM and 

condo development  without a work permit and I will get my Thai attorney to confirm your BS response.

[Delight]

5 minutes ago, inThailand said:

Ok, please name the falang that is a JPM and 

condo development  without a work permit and I will get my Thai attorney to confirm your BS response.

 There are Thai labour laws ,so in In the strict sense your frustration is understandable in relation to the strict Thai  law

Any lawyer can only refer to the strict Thai Law

 

The other dimension is Land Office Law
 

 

Thaivisa use to have a blog -'Ask the Lawyer'

He spelt in out in clear English i.e The strict Thai law .So if is  to be observed to the letter -then every Farang committee member is acting illegally and can be punished

 

But as that lawyer poited out the L.O is a law to it's self!

 

Money makes the world go around!

 

Hell would freeze over before Thai authorities implemented the strict Thai law. in relation to condo management. This also applies to buying a condo via a Company.

They simply will not do it!

 

In relation to the OP's circumstances he has to find a solution in conjunction with the L.O.

 

Exactly the  same way that Khun lkn did

[inThailand]

1 minute ago, Delight said:

 There are Thai labour laws ,so in In the strict sense your frustration is understandable in relation to the strict Thai  law

Any lawyer can only refer to the strict Thai Law

 

The other dimension is Land Office Law
 

 

Thaivisa use to have a blog -'Ask the Lawyer'

He spelt in out in clear English i.e The strict Thai law .So if is  to be observed to the letter -then every Farang committee member is acting illegally and can be punished

 

But as that lawyer poited out the L.O is a law to it's self!

 

Money makes the world go around!

 

Hell would freeze over before Thai authorities implemented the strict Thai law. in relation to condo management. This also applies to buying a condo via a Company.

They simply will not do it!

 

In relation to the OP's circumstances he has to find a solution in conjunction with the L.O.

 

Exactly the  same way that Khun lkn did

The reality is that as a falang JPM you cannot conduct JP business like a Thai without a work permit.

[KittenKong]

5 hours ago, smutcakes said:

Just a practical question, if you are in an EGM and one person declares they want to vote on something or a handful do and a handful dont, how in practical terms to you envisage controlling a General Meeting and what is added to vote on a what is not? Should the management have 20 extra voting papers for every possible agenda that could be raised?

 

Obviously it would depend on the size of the building and the number of voters present. Our voting slips come with a few numbered pages with nothing in the resolution heading specifically for this event, not that it happens very often. In a small building like the OP's it would be very easy to arrange.

 

The normal procedure would be that following a discussion one person would call for a vote, another person would second it and then the chairman or other suitable person should decide on the proper wording (which also may require some discussion). The chairman would then ask the assembly to vote using one of the numbered but blank pages provided for that purpose. Of course it all rather depends on the mood of those present as to how it actually works and whether any blood is spilt.

[KittenKong]

1 hour ago, lkn said:

This is not really how it works. When you have a clause that says (paraphrasing) “agenda with reasonable details must be sent to co-owners 7 days in advance” you can certainly make the legal argument that if reasonable details have not been provided to co-owners 7 days in advance, the meeting cannot pass any resolution on the item.

 

If the condo act was designed to do that then it would simply say "all resolutions must be detailed in the agenda and none may be added later". It does not say that, nor would it ever because to do so would make the meeting largely pointless and would deny shareholders their right to speak about what they want, and to make suggestions about what they want, and to vote on those topics.

The agenda is purely advisory and indicative. It is not exhaustive.

 

 

1 hour ago, lkn said:

Btw: You seem to believe that only the chairman can set the agenda for the AGM. There is no law preventing co-owners from submitting items to be discussed prior to the AGM, and co-owners should have a reasonable idea about when the AGM will be held (1-4 months after end of their financial year), so if you have proposals, send them to the committee shortly after the end of the financial year and ask for confirmation that it gets added to the agenda, if they fail to confirm this, send the proposal directly to the co-owners.

 

The chairman writes the agenda. Yes, other people can request that things be added, but it's up to the chairman whether he puts then in or not,  or how he words them. This is why the agenda has no legal value at all and is only for information. The meeting is where all the decisions should take place and it is where anyone can stand up and demand that an item be considered and eventually voted on.

[KittenKong]

18 minutes ago, Delight said:

He spelt in out in clear English i.e The strict Thai law .So if is  to be observed to the letter -then every Farang committee member is acting illegally and can be punished

 

This is not the case for the reasons I described earlier. As far as I know no one in authority has ever suggested that to be a director of a Thai company requires a work permit, and Immigration (who police what farangs do) have specifically gone on record to say that it doesnt. If it was required then every single farang who owns a house via a company would be in breach of that law.

 

[inThailand]

14 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

 

Obviously it would depend on the size of the building and the number of voters present. Our voting slips come with a few numbered pages with nothing in the resolution heading specifically for this event, not that it happens very often. In a small building like the OP's it would be very easy to arrange.

 

The normal procedure would be that following a discussion one person would call for a vote, another person would second it and then the chairman or other suitable person should decide on the proper wording (which also may require some discussion). The chairman would then ask the assembly to vote using one of the numbered but blank pages provided for that purpose. Of course it all rather depends on the mood of those present as to how it actually works and whether any blood is spilt.

PussyKong is defnding abnormal, shady and illegal meetings. Who else agrees with his distur

 

7 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

 

If the condo act was designed to do that then it would simply say "all resolutions must be detailed in the agenda and none may be added later". It does not say that, nor would it ever because to do so would make the meeting largely pointless and would deny shareholders their right to speak about what they want, and to make suggestions about what they want, and to vote on those topics.

The agenda is purely advisory and indicative. It is not exhaustive.

 

 

 

The chairman writes the agenda. Yes, other people can request that things be added, but it's up to the chairman whether he puts then in or not,  or how he words them. This is why the agenda has no legal value at all and is only for information. The meeting is where all the decisions should take place and it is where anyone can stand up and demand that an item be considered and eventually voted on.

He is not the most uninformed idiot on this post?  Yes let's f...the other owners so we can pass are own agenda?

[KittenKong]

1 hour ago, lkn said:

I was replying to your argument that “if people doesn’t even bother to send a proxy…” — what I am saying is that how would I know if I actually need to send a proxy, if the agenda sent to me is misrepresenting the issues to be voted on? Anyway, we are repeating ourselves, no need for further follow up on this.

 

The point is that you should always either attend a meeting or send a proxy who can make up his own mind about anything he is asked to vote on. If you dont do either of those things then you disenfranchise yourself.

 

As I pointed out several times, many details cannot possibly be included in the agenda anyway as they can vary up to the last minute before the vote. Notably who is standing for committee or JPM or auditor, but it is not limited to just those. This is why an agenda has no legal value apart from being an indication of some things that are expected to be discussed.

[KittenKong]

1 hour ago, Delight said:

At the end of the meeting the chairman can use his/her discretion to allow topics which are voiced in 'Any other Business' to  be voted on or not

 

Incorrect. The chairman cannot deny shareholders the right to discuss topics and eventually vote on them if they wish. You dont seem to understand: the shareholders own the building. The chairman is just one of their elected representatives. He is not God.

 

 

1 hour ago, Delight said:

Big issues ,such as replacing the JPM are simply too complex to be dealt with in this way. Remember you cannot just sack a JPM -they have to be replaced.

 

Incorrect. Terminating one and electing another are two entirely separate events, though the second should follow the first fairly promptly. If it doesnt then there are specific provisions in the condo act about what to do. There is nothing at all complex about it either. The condo act describes exactly how the vote should be taken and the only special requirement is that a certain percentage of all co-owners must be in favour of it.

 

 

1 hour ago, Delight said:

Therefore a good chairman would not allow a vote (i.e replacing  or sacking  without  follow thru replacement a JPM  )and  refer the matter  elsewhere. Typically to the next committee meeting.

This section of the meeting must be reflected in the minutes

 

Absolutely not. A committee meeting is specifically where hiring and firing a JPM can never be decided. Only the co-owners may decide this, and only by vote at a GM. The condo act is extremely clear about this.

 

[lkn]

6 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

As I pointed out several times, many details cannot possibly be included in the agenda anyway as they can vary up to the last minute before the vote […]

Only when the building is run by a bunch of amateurs (which I know is quite common here) — but that should be an argument in favor of enforcing the 7 day rule, because you need as many checks and balances as you can get with some of the types running Thai buildings here.

 

[inThailand]

Just now, lkn said:

Only when the building is run by a bunch of amateurs (which I know is quite common here) — but that should be an argument in favor of enforcing the 7 day rule, because you need as many checks and balances as you can get with some of the types running Thai buildings here.

 

Why call a meeting if you  don't know the issues to be voted on, ie the resolutions?

 

[Delight]

1 hour ago, inThailand said:

The reality is that as a falang JPM you cannot conduct JP business like a Thai without a work permit.

 The reality dis proves your view. If the LO does not dis approve then the use of a Farang JPM is fine.

If they say no -then No is NO

 

That said the committee has to be practical when using a Farang.

 You will always employ a Thai as the building manager

 

In relation to the OP's circumstance his condo is only 21 rooms

A proficient JPM could handle that with ease. A building manager (which is always an optional extra) could not be justified if  a 1st class JPM was employed

 

So where a Farang JPM exists it would be foolish not to employ a Thai building manager.

 

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by Delight
Spelling

[KittenKong]

4 hours ago, lkn said:

Only when the building is run by a bunch of amateurs (which I know is quite common here) — but that should be an argument in favor of enforcing the 7 day rule, because you need as many checks and balances as you can get with some of the types running Thai buildings here.

 

I disagree. For all elections for example (committee and JPM and auditor - the latter technically a choice rather than an election), it is impossible to know with certainty in advance who exactly will stand. So it is impossible to specify this accurately in an agenda. It is also impossible to know whether someone will stand down or withdraw between the time that the agenda is sent out and the moment of the vote.
That applies regardless of how competent management is.

[KittenKong]

4 hours ago, inThailand said:

Why call a meeting if you  don't know the issues to be voted on, ie the resolutions?

 

 

Because the law stipulates that an AGM must be called within a few months of the end of every financial year, and that the financial report must be presented to all attending co-owners at that time. Even if there are no resolutions at all to vote on there still has to be a yearly meeting.

 

In addition to this some topics requiring a vote recur regularly every x years and can be foreseen in advance even if the exact details are not known. Other business may also arise and co-owners have to be given the chance every year of discussing any of these subjects with the committee and management (if any of them bother to attend).

[Delight]

1 hour ago, KittenKong said:

 

Because the law stipulates that an AGM must be called within a few months of the end of every financial year, and that the financial report must be presented to all attending co-owners at that time. Even if there are no resolutions at all to vote on there still has to be a yearly meeting.

 

In addition to this some topics requiring a vote recur regularly every x years and can be foreseen in advance even if the exact details are not known. Other business may also arise and co-owners have to be given the chance every year of discussing any of these subjects with the committee and management (if any of them bother to attend).

 Would you agree that  when it came to an actual vote  on topics raised in AOB then this is always  at  the discretion of the chairman ?

[lkn]

1 hour ago, KittenKong said:

I disagree. For all elections for example (committee and JPM and auditor - the latter technically a choice rather than an election), it is impossible to know with certainty in advance who exactly will stand […]

But you do know whether or not you will appoint new board members, so you put “appointment of new board members” on the agenda.

 

It is not a problem to leave out a list of nominees, as all co-owners will know that new board members will be appointed, and they should know that all co-owners can serve on the board, so no-one can claim surprise if their neighbour gets elected. Only if someone who does not qualify, according to the Thai Condo Act, gets elected to serve on the board (e.g. an outsider) should co-owners have reason to complain that this person was not listed on the agenda prior to the AGM, as this would be an unexpected outcome from only reading the agenda.

 

As for JPM: You really should know who you’re going to propose as JPM seven days before the AGM, though I’m inclined to say that if the agenda only says “election of new JPM” without a nominee, this is enough of a clue to co-owners that they should attend this AGM, if they at all care about the JPM.

 

[KittenKong]

5 hours ago, Delight said:

Would you agree that  when it came to an actual vote  on topics raised in AOB then this is always  at  the discretion of the chairman ?

 

No.

[KittenKong]

5 hours ago, lkn said:

It is not a problem to leave out a list of nominees, as all co-owners will know that new board members will be appointed, and they should know that all co-owners can serve on the board, so no-one can claim surprise if their neighbour gets elected. Only if someone who does not qualify, according to the Thai Condo Act, gets elected to serve on the board (e.g. an outsider) should co-owners have reason to complain that this person was not listed on the agenda prior to the AGM, as this would be an unexpected outcome from only reading the agenda.

 

The argument was that the agenda should contain all relevant information about upcoming votes so that co-owners can make up their minds well in advance and inform proxy holders etc.

 

I just pointed out why this is totally impossible. And it follows from this proof that the agenda does in fact have no real validity at all. It is just a guide and is never exhaustive. The dictionary definition of the word backs me up. "List or outline or plan".

 

 

5 hours ago, lkn said:

As for JPM: You really should know who you’re going to propose as JPM seven days before the AGM, though I’m inclined to say that if the agenda only says “election of new JPM” without a nominee, this is enough of a clue to co-owners that they should attend this AGM, if they at all care about the JPM.

 

I still maintain that all co-owners who are interested in their building should attend all GMs (or send a proxy with a brain) as potentially any question could come up to be voted on, and such votes would be entirely legal (assuming respect of quorum rules). Those who dont attend only have themselves to blame if things get voted on that they dont agree with.

 

The whole point of a GM is for all shareholders to get together to decide how to run their business/building, and all the decisions are to be made by co-owners on the day.

[lkn]

4 hours ago, KittenKong said:

The argument was that the agenda should contain all relevant information about upcoming votes so that co-owners can make up their minds well in advance and inform proxy holders etc.

I certainly did not make that argument. I wrote “reasonable details” and “matters to be voted on”.

 

This is Samui For Sale’s translation of the clause being discussed:

 

Section 42/3 On summoning to the General Meeting, written letters indicating the place, date, time and Meeting agendas and the matters to be presented to the Meeting together with reasonable details shall be made and forwarded to the joint owners at least seven days prior to the Meeting date.
 

When interpreting the Act one should remember that the intent of the Act is to protect the interests of the individual co-owners. Clause 42/3 serves to protect co-owners from surprise resolutions being passed on an AGM they were unable to attend. If that is not the intent of clause 42/3 then why mention that co-owners must be informed about “matters to be presented […] with reasonable details”?

 

Though in practice, if a resolution is passed that a co-owner disagrees with (and was not notified about in advance), they will have to go to the courts to get a judgement, and the judge will likely look at the impact of the resolution. For example, if the AGM voted to ban pets from the building, the judge may find this negatively impacts non-present co-owners, so this should have been communicated to them in advance, whereas if the vote is to buy new uniforms for the staff, the judge may find that this is reasonable to expect discussed under “any other business”.

 

[Delight]

8 hours ago, KittenKong said:

 

No.

 The alternative is that all topics raised in AOB must -if vote worthy -be voted on.

This cannot be right!

 

Chairman must be able to decide.

Power and responsibilty of a good chairman.

The chairman controls the meeting -not the attendees.

The meetings are described as General Meetings -Not co -owners meetings. Granted only co -owners(plus certain officials) can attend .

Edited August 18, 2017 by Delight

[KittenKong]

7 hours ago, lkn said:

When interpreting the Act one should remember that the intent of the Act is to protect the interests of the individual co-owners. Clause 42/3 serves to protect co-owners from surprise resolutions being passed on an AGM they were unable to attend. If that is not the intent of clause 42/3 then why mention that co-owners must be informed about “matters to be presented […] with reasonable details”?

 

Yes, they get an agenda with some details. But it is not written in stone and it does not (necessarily) cover everything. Why not? Because extra votes may arise at the meeting following discussions, and the options of voting may change. If such extra discussions and votes were prohibited then the condo act would be explicit about it. It is not.

This is how company meetings work. And a condo is basically just a company.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, lkn said:

Though in practice, if a resolution is passed that a co-owner disagrees with (and was not notified about in advance), they will have to go to the courts to get a judgement, and the judge will likely look at the impact of the resolution. For example, if the AGM voted to ban pets from the building, the judge may find this negatively impacts non-present co-owners, so this should have been communicated to them in advance, whereas if the vote is to buy new uniforms for the staff, the judge may find that this is reasonable to expect discussed under “any other business”.

 

As long as enough co-owners are present to satisfy the law then the vote is valid and no one has any reason to complain. I also see no reason why any judge would even hear such a case unless co-owners had not received notification in due time of the meeting, or unless there had been some trickery with the vote counting. If people are concerned about what gets voted on then they should attend the meeting (or send a proxy). It's really very very simple. If you dont attend (or send a proxy) then you forfeit your right to have your opinion heard or your vote counted. And you cant get it back later.

 

 

[KittenKong]

4 hours ago, Delight said:

The alternative is that all topics raised in AOB must -if vote worthy -be voted on.

This cannot be right!

 

Absolutely it is. A matter just needs to be proposed and seconded. No one can forbid such a vote.

 

 

4 hours ago, Delight said:

Chairman must be able to decide.

Power and responsibilty of a good chairman.

The chairman controls the meeting -not the attendees.

 

You seem to have no idea at all of what a chairman's job is. He is not a God, he is not a king and he is not a dictator. He isnt even a president. He has no power of any type to make any sort of decision himself as all decisions must be made either by majority vote of a committee or (for more important decisions) by majority vote of co-owners at a meeting. The chairman is there only to impose order and to ensure that relevant rules and laws are obeyed. To act as policeman and mediator, if you like. The only thing that makes a chairman stand out from other committee members is that he has a casting vote in committee, and this is only done to avoid having a hung vote. At a GM he only differs from other co-owners in that he has the job of keep the meeting in order and allowing people to speak in turn rather than all gabbling at once. It is also his job to move the meeting forward and not to allow it to degenerate into squabbles. It is NOT his job to deny co-owners the chance to speak or to deny them the chance to suggest amendments and changes to the way the building is run.

 

 

4 hours ago, Delight said:

The meetings are described as General Meetings -Not co -owners meetings. Granted only co -owners(plus certain officials) can attend .

 

You have no idea what you are talking about. None at all. Do yourself a favour and learn something: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annual_general_meeting

[Delight]

2 hours ago, KittenKong said:

 

A matter just needs to be proposed and seconded. No one can forbid such a vote.

 

 A issue does need a proposer.

It is  the chairman's dicretion whether or not a seconder is requested.

If the chairman does not ask for a seconder the matter is closed

 

He of couse will have to detail  his rationale for the decision

 

Other wise any  idiot co -owner can propose  to sack the JPM-with no supporting evidence and no replacement in hand.

In such circumstances the chairman will not call for a seconder .

There is  no power on the planet to force him to.

[KittenKong]

8 hours ago, Delight said:

It is  the chairman's dicretion whether or not a seconder is requested.

If the chairman does not ask for a seconder the matter is closed

 

Absolutely not.

 

 

8 hours ago, Delight said:

Other wise any  idiot co -owner can propose  to sack the JPM-with no supporting evidence and no replacement in hand.

 

Any two co-owners (proposer and seconder) can indeed propose this, or anything else. Evidence is not required. A GM is not a court and decisions (votes) are made based purely according to what the co-owners want to do. For any motion to pass the proper quorum would have to be present and the proper percentage of favourable votes would have to be achieved, but that's all.

 

Finding a replacement JPM is entirely secondary to removing the first JPM. There is absolutely no requirement that the former has to be in place before the latter is voted on.

That said, if co-owners are keen to change JPM then they probably have new candidates in mind. And of course if the proposal is nonsensical then the majority of attendees at the meeting would simply vote against it, thus ending the discussion. That's what voting and meetings is all about.

 

 

8 hours ago, Delight said:

In such circumstances the chairman will not call for a seconder .

There is  no power on the planet to force him to.

 

The chairman is just a figurehead. Decisions such as these are not his to make at all.

[Delight]

7 hours ago, KittenKong said:

 

Absolutely not.

 

 

 

Any two co-owners (proposer and seconder) can indeed propose this, or anything else. Evidence is not required. A GM is not a court and decisions (votes) are made based purely according to what the co-owners want to do. For any motion to pass the proper quorum would have to be present and the proper percentage of favourable votes would have to be achieved, but that's all.

 

Finding a replacement JPM is entirely secondary to removing the first JPM. There is absolutely no requirement that the former has to be in place before the latter is voted on.

That said, if co-owners are keen to change JPM then they probably have new candidates in mind. And of course if the proposal is nonsensical then the majority of attendees at the meeting would simply vote against it, thus ending the discussion. That's what voting and meetings is all about.

 

 

 

The chairman is just a figurehead. Decisions such as these are not his to make at all.

 Clearly we are never going to agree

 

Suggest we leave it at that