I should say, John may well have a had a fantastic career in his...

I should say, John may well have a had a fantastic career in his chosen field and we all should respect that, but in my view he is not a Chair and effectively acting the front for Paul acting as Executive Chair, given who speaks, who takes direction from whom, his absence from speaking out over the past few weeks particularly etc (The Org Chart and JD's don't match the reality of tasks performed or responsibilities undertaken?)

I asked the question at the last AGM about who would take responsibility "this time next year if the stated objectives hadn't been met?" I was trying to tie either Paul or John down to someone taking responsibility and having to fall on their sword if the objectives weren't met ..(again) GOVERNANCE & ACCOUNTABILITY!

My view is I suspect, JE had been worded up by Paula and Paul on how to address the issue of him not buying shares that was being heavily discussed on HC. They obviously planned around that as at the first sign of a uncomfortable question, JE gave an incomplete or untested answer to my question saying words to the effect "the company had hit targets since he was Chair" and changed the subject to "now addressing the issue of me buying shares"... his "conflict of interest" and how that impacted on him buying more shares etc

All this says to me it was a scripted defence on an issue the company was sensitive to. That John's mind was so set on addressing that sensitivity at the first sign of trouble said it all. My question wasn't answered and he went to the safe scripted area he had been prepared for...

I guess my question has been answered now in any case and THE WHOLE COMPANY is being dragged into the accountability conversation through the 249d.

If only the Chair and Board had done its job????????????????????????