Thistle Housing Attempts to Subvert Shareholders’ Special General Meeting

1,668 DAYS – FOUR YEARS + 6 MONTHS + 25 DAYS
since Thistle’s mismanaged Major Works Programme started on 7th January 2016
1,340 DAYS – THREE YEARS + 8 MONTHS + 5 DAYS
since 30th November 2016 when “all of the works to all of the houses in Toryglen will be complete“. Today, Saturday 1st August 2020, still incomplete, work proven to be shoddy and more importantly, dangerous and now possibly hazardous to life and limb with millions of pounds required for rectification work. Thistle Housing has hardly lifted a finger to rectify their misdeeds

The blog post, on 29 July 2020, detailed Thistle Housing Association shareholders’ request for a Special General Meeting.

A response from Thistle’s Management Committee was despatched to shareholders of Thistle Housing in a letter dated 31 July 2020, the first page of which can be seen here or by enlarging the image below. Their intentions immediately disallow  the  inclusion  of  so  many  Thistle  shareholders.

The shareholders’ request for a Special General Meeting (SGM), apparently, threw Thistle and their takeover partners in Sanctuary into some disarray added only by the shock experienced by the Scottish Housing Regulator’s Statutory Manager, principally aghast that  Thistle shareholders would have the barefaced cheek to use Thistle’s Rules to call for such a meeting.

The usual suspects, as in Thistle, Sanctuary, aided and abetted by the Regulator, desperately contacted their solicitors (more expense) and consequently, are working on the premise that an SGM cannot be held in a regular fashion, there is provision in the Corporate Insolvency and Government Act 2020 of the Westminster parliament, which came into force on 26 June 2020 and which permits the use of “electronic means”  to effect a “General Meeting”, between 26 March 2020 and 30 September 2020.

Whilst Thistle have abided by their own Rules, as above, in replying to the call for an SGM and the meeting date (as above), they have neither abided by the reason nor the spirit for an SGM.

Click. SCHEDULE 14Section 37_clipped  to read the part of the Act as it seems to pertain to Thistle’s actions. The Act, in full, can be downloaded here

ZOOM! – The Get Out
Thistle, in all of its parts, have always treated Toryglen residents as trash, never considering that they would ever ask questions. With the utter failure of the Major Works Programme, mismanagement and lying discovered by the Scottish Housing Regulator and the continual silence and no information from Thistle, all over Thistle’s nineteen years’ presence in Toryglen, the calling of an SGM was necessary, particularly in the light of the proposed Sanctuary Housing takeover and the flooding of Thistle Fort with its employees.

Whilst the SGM could have been held in the accepted manner, they have decided that the meeting will not take place in the usual venue in the church hall where there is more than adequate room to allow for required and necessary social distancing. If the attendance is anything like previous AGMs, possibly a maximum of eighty shareholders would be expected and probably far fewer, there being no bingo session. A meeting in the church hall would therefore be possible with the required Coronavirus protections in place.

From an email sent to this site:

The whole idea of an AGM or SGM, is the calling together of shareholders to discuss a topic, compare notes, if you will, with other shareholders and argue the points raised either for or against and eventually take a vote, a vote which can, if requested, be by ballot as opposed to a show of hands. These circumstances are not only undeniable but are required, otherwise such a meeting cannot be termed as an AGM or SGM.

Furthermore, they have decided that the meeting will be via the Zoom videoconferencing app and at 5.30pm when families are normally busy arranging meals, etc. There has never been any General Meeting called at this time so why call on at teatime now? Simply not appropriate.

• • • “security lapses and poor design choices” that have resulted in heightened scrutiny of its software”
    • “inquiry into Zoom’s privacy and security practices”
    • “As of April 2020, businesses, schools, and government entities who have restricted or prohibited the use of Zoom on their networks include Google, Siemens, the Australian Defence Force, the German Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs, SpaceX, and the New York City Department of Education”
    • “Zoom has been criticised for its privacy and corporate data sharing policies, as well as enabling video hosts to potentially violate the privacy of those participating in their calls”
    • “allowed a remote unauthenticated attacker to spoof UDP messages that allowed the attacker to remove attendees from meetings, spoof messages from users, or hijack shared screens”
    • “But there’s a downside. Zoom’s ease of use makes it easy for troublemakers to “bomb” open Zoom meetings. Information-security professionals say Zoom’s security has had a lot of holes, although some have been fixed over the past few months”.

    • “There’s also been scrutiny of Zoom’s privacy policies, which until recently seemed to give Zoom the right to do whatever it wanted with users’ personal data, and its encryption policies, which have been more than a tad misleading”

They wish to use the Zoom internet app which is known for its security and privacy failings together with the massive likelihood of constant line drops and buffering thus dissuading users to continue a videoconferencing session.

Despite Thistle’s attempts to subvert an SGM with all of the unnecessary complications, there is the underlying requirement and assumption that all shareholders will have an internet connection of some kind, that they have the required equipment to connect to the internet and that they have sufficient knowledge to utilise the required app/internet address.

Thistle’s Attempt to Minimise Shareholders’ Inclusion?
All shareholders must have an opportunity to attend any type of General Meeting but this decision to use internet connections immediately debars an unacceptably large number of shareholders from taking part in an SGM “by electronic means”.

From an email sent to this site:

I have, at this point, to chuck in to the discussion, a comment by Grace McColgan, the ex Director of Thistle, who arrogantly announced both verbally and in writing, that ‘100% of people in Toryglen were not interested in a website or in broadband’, that being, of course, as a result of one of Thistle’s supposed opinion polls of which no one could ever remember having been part. A very strange outpouring of made up lies from Mrs McColgan and her pack, even stranger when it was, eventually, the internet and the use of social media by the droves of internet connected residents which deservedly brought her down and, when it comes to it, assisted Thistle Housing to commit hara kiri as it drowned in corruption, ineptitude and lies.

Bearing in mind that some Toryglen residents use an ADSL broadband connection rather than fibre (not readily available in Toryglen) or a Virgin Broadband cable connection, the maximum speed which can be obtained from ADSL is generally and painfully slow due to the distance from the telephone exchange in Rutherglen. See the comments below. The likelihood of an acceptable connection is minimal. On once again, this will debar a large number of shareholders from taking part in an online SGM.

From an email sent to this site:

They would require to have a suitable internet connection. With broadband, many Toryglen residents have an ADSL connection via their telephone line. Assuming that is correctly setup (and that’s a huge assumption), they are unlikely to benefit from sufficient bandwidth to fully utilise a long videoconferencing session, at least without having to undergo constant breaks and having to re-establish a link, not to mention the frustration which would ensue. ADSL has a physical bandwidth limit of 24 Mbits/sec and then you would have to be plugged directly into the serving telephone exchange in Queen Street, Rutherglen. The further away a user is from the exchange, the less bandwidth is available. Around Kerrycroy Place/Street/Avenue and even further distant in Ardmory Avenue, broadband ADSL users have around 2 to 3 Mbits/sec available downwards and as little as 400 Kbits/sec upwards, rendering their link practically useless. Another assumption is that they are not connected to their router via ethernet but via wireless and that that is correctly set up, which is seldom, very seldom the case. Note that this applies to those with PCs/laptops and handheld devices utilising wireless.

Shareholders who conduct a proposed Zoom session on their smartphones, if they have them and many of the elder shareholders may not have smartphones, may end up, without their knowledge, use up their data allowances resulting, possibly, in a huge charge from their network providers.

All in all, Thistle gives the impression that their use of a government act, as above, is to “make different provision for different purposes” in that its aim is to reduce the number of attendees to the SGM, held in any way.

There would appear to be some sway in the permitted in the new government regulations. If that is the case, Thistle, surprise, surprise, has ignored it.

Whilst the SGM has to take place before the AGM (pencilled in for 23 September 2020), it can be delayed, even with shareholders’ request, so as to assess the health situation of a regular meeting at a later time.

A videoconferencing session absolutely will not permit the required discussion and exchange of information required at any General Meeting and, as stated previously, will debar so many shareholders from participating. A Thistle fiddle?

Part of an Email to Thistle Objecting to Videoconferencing
Click special_general_meeting_email_redacted, part of an email sent to this site between and amongst Toryglen residents/shareholders regarding the inappropriateness of Thistle’s Zoom lark.

It is understood that they have, thus far, failed to respond to any of the issues detailed.

The Argument For A Zoom Session

The Argument Against A Zoom Session

From an email sent to this site:

Can you imagine, in the unlikely event that a videoconference actually did take place for AGM or SGM purposes, Thistle are once again on the mendacious, losing side of the argument and simply pull the plug. ‘Oops, sorry, we can’t continue due to unforeseen technical difficulties’, as Miss Sprott stands there, bemasked, reeking of alcohol (hand sanitiser that is, maybe) with a loose thirteen amp plug in her claw.

The whole idea of an AGM or SGM, is the calling together of shareholders to discuss a topic, compare notes, if you will, with other shareholders and argue the points raised either for or against and eventually take a vote, a vote which can, if requested, be by ballot as opposed to a show of hands. These circumstances are not only undeniable but are required, otherwise such a meeting cannot be termed as an AGM or SGM.

In the case of Thistle Housing, the AGMs have always been no more than a bingo session for their pals with an AGM inconveniently tacked on. Recent AGMs have been manipulated, bullying sessions at the hand of Thistle, its solicitors, unrecognised and uninvited guests and the dreadful events of last year whereby they managed to rail in two police officers within and three outside thus attempting to intimidate shareholders. Not that any of that worked as well as they had wished!

1. The ethos of an AGM/SGM is discussion between and amongst attendees, argument, counter argument and voting by ballot. This cannot be fulfilled by means of a distant, impersonal and prone to breakdown video link, therefore not feasible.
2. How many shareholders do have a laptop/smartphone/tablet? Thistle doesn’t know hence too many shareholders could well be debarred from participating.
3. How many shareholders have a suitable broadband link? Thistle have no clue, so once again, not feasible as those without a reasonable internet connection would consequently be debarred from participating.
4. Are shareholders’ devices capable of sustaining a link? Again, Thistle don’t know hence not feasible.
5. Do shareholders have the required knowledge to setup and maintain a link, a system which in all probability, other than possibly a WhatsApp or Skype video, they have never attempted? On balance, probably very few, hence not feasible.
6. Do shareholders’ mobile systems have sufficient data allowances, if required? Thistle don’t know therefore, once more, not feasible.
7. Are shareholders’ broadband connections, if available, correctly configured, including wireless? Thistle don’t know, hence not feasible.
8. In the event of an overrun of a mobile data allowance, will Thistle compensate shareholders, bearing in mind charges can be massively punitive? Mmmm!
9. Will Thistle guarantee the security and safety of any Zoom connection? As they can barely work their own systems, that one would be in the negative.
10. Is the proposed use of Zoom based on a fully commercial and purchased server licence or is it the quick ‘n (not so) easy crappy free version which has a time limit of forty minutes? Thistle has a long-standing habit of squandering residents’ funds, so the former could be the case. Sight of the authorisation would be required. In the case of the latter, don’t go there as in the very off chance every shareholder’s circumstance met all of the above criteria, which won’t be the case, and assuming every link was constant and not interrupted, forty minutes would be an insufficient time to conduct business at either an AGM or a SGM.