Imagine a situation: Mr A is a prominent member of a golf club, and one of the more influential members of its governing committee. He decides, however, that he wants to end his membership, and notifies the committee accordingly.
He makes clear that, although he is ending his membership and consequently not continuing his subscription, he would like to negotiate a different sort of relationship for the future. He proposes that he should still have more-or-less full use of the club’s facilities, but with zero tariffs for their use.
Furthermore, since he will no longer be a member, he expects for the sake of his personal sovereignty to be free of any obligation to follow the club’s key rules while he is using its facilities. Moreover, although as a member he did allow some other members to park their cars on a nearby plot of his own land, he now insists as a non-member that such a facility will no longer be allowed.
When the club committee, feeling this is a bit unbalanced, does not immediately accept his proposals, he makes loud noises, calling them names and telling anyone who will listen what a load of bullies they are, and why can’t they just get on and grant him what he asks, which is no more (he says) than a Canadian friend of his obtained from them.
Various people point out that it’s not actually true that his Canadian friend got so much, but it doesn’t stop his righteous outbursts and repetition of his accusations.
What do we say? Good on yer, Mr A?
John Tippler
Spalding
