Objection to MEM/1986/09, circulated to the houses

To the stewardship —

I am told that the memorandum of June is settled and that the proper time to object has passed. I would like to know when the proper time was. It was issued without discussion at any house, took effect on the day of issue, and was notified to us afterwards, in a list.

I do not object to a rule. A body of two thousand people requires a rule about who is in it. I object to a rule that describes a person as a property of our filing.

Consider what item 4 actually does. It does not forbid correspondence; it removes correspondence from the post. The result is identical and the wording permits us to say it is not. That is the sort of sentence institutions write when they wish to do a thing and also to have not done it.

I am told eleven people have been designated since June. I have written to four of them at my own expense. Two replied. One asked whether she had been expelled, which is precisely the question item 2 assures us will not arise.

I ask that the memorandum be laid before the houses and voted on, as though it were new, which as far as the houses are concerned it is.

— G. Idris