HOME PAGE | FACTFILES | QUOTES | COMMENT FORM |

Truth, and economy

The first Minister of Government I met told me a most horrible lie almost immediately.

Claud Cockburn, journalist, in Cockburn Sums Up.

At a recent meeting of the ACU&S General Council, Mrs Cathy Rawson mounted a spirited defence of her book-keeper husband, Chris Rawson, when it was suggested that he might bear any responsibility for ACU&S' financial problems, might not be of the right calibre, might just possibly lack sufficient credibility, might be slightly short of the required degree of integrity, to seek election as the Deputy General Secretary. Her loyalty in standing up for him has to be applauded, especially as she must know that nothing either of them has written, or spoken, in his defence can bear the slightest scrutiny. What merit is there in her assertions? Since Mrs Rawson's memory seems to be so selective, let us take yet another look at the events in which both, not only Chris Rawson, were so inextricably concerned.

Both were members of General Council with Chris Rawson being, as Assistant Treasurer (Accounts), a member also of the Finance Board and she, as Chairman of the Scorers Board, a member of the Executive Board. The e-mail exchanges left behind on the CCC computer when Stuart-King was made redundant show that he, Rawson, dealt directly with the day-to-day transactions, although the Treasurer was kept advised, with others, of most of them. They show also that it is not true that he acted simply in a book-keeping role and Mrs Rawson, although she affects to believe otherwise, is well aware of that fact. Indeed, in the very nature of things, she must have known just as much as her husband about ACU&S' finances. After all, they share an house and, presumably, a bed. She will not have heard about ACU&S' financial problems for the first time at Council meetings.

Ask yourselves if it is credible that Rawson could have prepared the Annual Accounts to October 2004 without knowing perfectly well that ACU&S had made a sizeable loss for the year? What else could his e-mail of 3rd November to Stuart-King mean, when he wrote "we are showing a loss on the year of about £51,500"? And ask if it is credible that Mrs Rawson would not have been told by him? Was he acting just as a book-keeper when he prepared an invoice for £100,000 addressed to Ace European Group? Was it just book-keeping when this was replaced by another bearing the same number and date, and for the same amount, made out to NACLCC at the CCC offices, from which Stuart-King conducted ACU&S business? And would Mrs Rawson not have heard rather more than a hint of this?

And just what did this simple book-keeper mean when he e-mailed Stuart-King (copies to Martin Reed and Peter Freeman) on 11th November saying this? "As requested I have today posted invoice number 0304/87 dated 27 October 2004 in the sum of £100,000 plus VAT to the National Association of Clubs & League Cricket Conferences at the CCC address. Issuing this invoice has had a beneficial effect on our end-of-year accounts - if you don't look too closely at the debtors......" Can you believe he did not know precisely what he was doing? Can you really believe also that Mrs Rawson was not fully aware of these shenanigans?

Ask yourselves, too, (or perhaps you might ask at the AGM, if you have thought it worthwhile to pay your Stuart-King debt-inflated subscription this year) why it was, that for the first time in the Association's fifty-year history, and only a matter of weeks before the AGM, the Assistant Treasurer (Accounts) had the need to e-mail this to his chairman? "Barrie - I have purchased a shredder to deal with some of the more 'sensitive' accounts documents. It cost £34.99 plus VAT. May I have your authority to claim it back from the Association, please?" So, he was going to destroy documents which were ACU&S' property, and charge ACU&S for it. But ask this. What "sensitive" accounts documents could ACU&S possibly have, for the first time in its history? What was it that could not stand the light of day, or an auditors' scrutiny?

Later on, not three weeks after the accounts had been voted through at the AGM - during which members of General Council sat silently as Stuart-King and Smith and Freeman lied their heads off in answer to our questions - this (allegedly) financial unsophisticate prepared and issued a credit note to cancel out the invoice number 0304/87, and so render the accounts which had been passed completely invalid, as the auditors noted the following year. None of the General Council, and certainly not Chris nor Cathy Rawson, nor Peter Freeman, nor Martin Reed, nor the editor of how's that?, nor any of the current ICUS crew, felt that this accountancy somersault was worth telling the membership about. That is how much respect they all have for your intelligence and opinion. Never forget it.

Chris Rawson, currently a Regional Councillor, sits on General Council. Alongside the silver-tongued - or should that be fork-tongued? - Mrs Rawson. Shortly, he will be asking for your votes to become the Deputy General Secretary, at which time ACU&S will have abandoned finally any claim to be taken seriously. Ask yourselves whether you regard Rawson, or his wife, as fit persons to hold any office in a properly run organisation. Famously, it was written in Mein Kampf that "the broad mass....will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one." Mrs Rawson and her husband are committed to their lying because admitting to the truth would finish them in the Association. Like their ICUS defector friends, both are a disgrace to cricket.