Ms Ethna Tinney:

Because, in fact, this is the one thing that I do want to tell you. If you look at page 45 and page 47, they're actually identical, aren't they? They're a reproduction of nominations committee meetings that were held first on 24 January and then on Thursday, 8 February when they had decided to, you know, whatever, get rid of me. And the verbiage is this: "Ethna's performance as a Director has been formally independently adjudged to be well below average in the two formal board evaluations to date." Now, will you go back to page 43? And this adverts to January 2004, three years before. And if you look at the re-election of Ethna Tinney, you will see these words: "Brian Joyce, chairman of the Board, reported on the outcome of his discussion with Ethna Tinney following receipt of the individual director evaluation (based on the evaluation forms completed by the other 10 directors and collated by Jim Bruce)." So, the change in the verbiage is so significant, even though the two processes were exactly the same. In other words, in 2004, the minutes are accurate. Our evaluation consisted of being given a page and we had to fill in boxes, from one to five, of how we rated our colleagues under certain headings - attendance; punctuality; collegiality; business knowledge; you name it, it was in there - and of course the gas thing was, since you couldn't mark yourself, it was apparent long before it was collated by Jim Bruce, for anybody who wanted to study this information, who was writing what about whom.

The other corollary was that since it was done, to that extent, anomaly, you know, anybody could write any figure they liked about anybody else. Now, I can accept that, provided you tell the truth, but fast-forward to 2007, to be well ... to be adjudged formally, independently adjudged to be well below average, that is simply a lie.