Jan, forgive me for jumping on one little quote
Anyway, FWIW I always like your posts, always respected your efforts and your openness to listen to all sides, and generally how you phrase things tallies with what I'd hope and expect from a trust... I also understand well that you can have a personal view that may be more hardline, but that doesn't affect the public statements or the official trust position, and respect the fact you keep that to one side as much as possible for the greater good.
So I'll get the patronising personal view out the way first
I do struggle with the bit I've taken out though. As I said, I read your posts/statements etc. and they do indeed come across as you say happens above.
The Trust statements however do, to me, seem somewhat schizophrenic! I could pick up (and will, if you want

) a fair few statements that are anything but sitting in the middle without spin! And these statements kind of undermine what you say above, and runs the risk that 'sitting in the middle' is viewed with suspicion, as being not the genuine view or genuine desire of the trust. The shizophrenic nature, in short, erodes trust in the trust in my view, stops the trust being able to fulfill its role as well as possible, denies it a voice at times where it could maybe have a voice when others aren't able to speak.
Moving forward, have there been any discussions about how a more consistent message can be relayed and, if so, what was the result of those discussions?