As ACCA members know the ACCA officials have used the official magazine, press releases and briefings to attack one of the EGM organizers, Anthony Thomas. The ACCA have also sent officials on overseas trips to bribe members and secure their vote. Messrs. Thomas and Cruse have acted in accordance with the bye-laws and secured the EGM. Howver, they have been denied any space in the official magazine.

In the interests of democratic debate, ABBA is happy to publish the following response from Anthony Thomas. Should ACCA officials  respond, we would also be happy to publish their views.

Anthony Thomas's  response to the ACCA is follows:

• It is astonishing that the ACCA need to send a 20 page document to members when all that is asked for from the proposers of the EGM motion is the setting up of an independent  commission.  If it takes 20 pages of rebuttal, then clearly there is something to-hide.

• What a pity that the ACCA find it necessary to personalise the matter of the EGM. Regretfully, the ACCA have launched into personal attacks which is most unfortunate.  Furthermore the ACCA document contains misstatements and this is becoming the hallmark of ACCA attacks.  The continual reference  in the press to "this EGM has been called by broadly the same grow of people" is an outright lie. No previous EGM has been supported by past council members (CLICK HERE FOR MORE). No previous EGM had such large support from outside the UK. Even the ACCA have now admitted in their document that only 15 of the total of 114 proposers supported any of the previous EGM.

• Given that there are 20 pages of rebuttal it seems odd that the ACCA have totally failed to deal with a number of important issues.  These have been totally ignored. There is no reference to the current position on the "merger" (CLICK HERE),  no reference to any current legal disputes, and there are probably several (ACCA SUED IN INDIA;ACCA FACES £300,000 LAWSUIT; ACCA ADMITTED PLAGIARISM), the document is silent on the whole question of subsidised fees for China (CLICK FOR MORE), and no reference to poor relationship with Members of Parliament (CLICK FOR MORE) . This is An organisation which prides itself on openness.  Why did the ACCA fail to produce another few pages to deal with these very important matters.  Quite simply the ACCA have something to hide and are not straight with members.  There is not much difference between 20 and 22 pages!

• The constant reference in the ACCA statement that I refused to meet John Brockwell is a lie.  The position was made perfectly clear and 1 tried desperately over the course of a month to meet him.  He knows the ACCA have put a "spin" on his correspondence with me, which if examined would show the ACCA as disingenuous.