Is It True

[milly]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

agreed chris.
not ok to do anything at the min gaz dont believe a life ban was fair.. but everywhere u go its bruce and di this or tony n yvonne that. and it shudnt be thats all im saying

the racing shud be the 1st thing u hear about not the rest..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

For once i agree :thumbsup:

This is beyond politics this is PERSONAL! Yvonne & Tony are not going to get banned by the BWRA some 3/4 however many years later - END OF - now lets move on!!!! If anyone would like something done about that outcome then if you feel so strongly about it i suggest you go about it through the right channels and approach the BWRA instead of keep spouting the same monotonous crap on here which is achieveing absolutely nothing apart from boring the rest of us to tears -_-

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Bang on Vicky :thumbsup: it bores me to death reading it on k9 and hearing it at the track. Lets get on with racing our dogs, and having the crack.

Geoff

 

[mutley]

soz vic just been light hearted (w00t)

 

[simpson]

BORING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[thesonofpork]

agreed chris.
not ok to do anything at the min gaz dont believe a life ban was fair.. but everywhere u go its bruce and di this or tony n yvonne that. and it shudnt be thats all im saying

the racing shud be the 1st thing u hear about not the rest..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

For once i agree :thumbsup:

This is beyond politics this is PERSONAL! Yvonne & Tony are not going to get banned by the BWRA some 3/4 however many years later - END OF - now lets move on!!!! If anyone would like something done about that outcome then if you feel so strongly about it i suggest you go about it through the right channels and approach the BWRA instead of keep spouting the same monotonous crap on here which is achieveing absolutely nothing apart from boring the rest of us to tears -_-

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Vicky are you forgetting this is a debate forum ... if you don't like and think its personal don't read it there is a way to block members post you don't want to read i believe ...theres alot more personal comments been added on here to wards k9 members ....puppy farmer springs to mind..and i believe the post is still on

It is the 21 century you know and freedom of speech and all that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

denise i no its a debate forum but i believe it was set up for debates on whippet racing!! yes racing and not about all of this!

 

[Vicky]

It is the 21 century you know and freedom of speech and all that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Exactly Denise and the above was just my opinion.

As a moderator i am well aware of the facilities on k9 as to blocking people's posts, the post which you refer to has never been reported to any of the moderators and if the person involved thinks this is slander then maybe they should persue the case further.

 

[RealMadYid]

put ya specs on then paul joke

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I know it was fella, I know it was...and about 'wor Kev' ok I'm stopping gotta get to bed...

Paul

 

[thesonofpork]

attention all mods can u please delete all the happy birthday posts on k9 as they dont concern racing!!!! lol

denise u no what i mean!!

 

[thesonofpork]

attention all mods can u please delete all the happy birthday posts on k9 as they dont concern racing!!!! lol












denise u no what i mean!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I rest my case :cheers:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

thank god for that,, trial over leave it to the jury!! lol :cheers:

 

[GRAHAM PEM]

attention all mods can u please delete all the happy birthday posts on k9 as they dont concern racing!!!! lol












denise u no what i mean!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I rest my case :cheers:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

thank god for that,, trial over leave it to the jury!! lol :cheers:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

wow im sat here with a pint look like getting p----- at this rate . PMSL

 

[Vicky]

wow im sat here with a pint look like getting p----- at this rate .                PMSL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I've hit the bottle too :lol: Not had my bloody tea yet :lol:

 

[mutley]

im sayin nowt else (w00t)

 

[Paws123]

Wish i had hit the bottle but dont drink any more :- " (w00t) :cheers:

 

[Tony Taylor]

I was one of those  who  ticked  only one box for her and one box for him ----- as that i understand was the correct procedure to follow --for an indefinite suspension of their membership ---I also signed mine as i am proud to stand up and be counted ---nothing to hide nothing to fear thats my view---

steve

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The problem with interpreting ticking one box only as being the correct procedure is that it means the ballot would reasonably be construed as being biased towards a lifetime ban. It is easy to demonstrate that under this interpretation of ticking only one box as being the correct procedure that the lifetime ban option could receive the most votes while at the same time being the minority of votes cast.

It doesn't matter whether this is the correct interpretation of how to complete the ballot or not, only that a member or members thought this to be the case to demonstrate the ballot is unfair. Certainly that was my initial interpretation of the ballot.

At the NW BWRA region AGM there was a majority of views that the ballot was confusing and open to different interpretation on the correct way to complete. It is possible to answer all questions in a logical consistent way. However it is also true that it is possible to answer the questions separately in a way that is nonsense - you could vote for no action on question 1 and for a lifetime ban on question 2.

It would be interesting to find out if any of the 9 ballot papers that were invalid were made invalid for this reason.

Signing the ballot could possibly leave you liable to a defamation charge. Being the member or an officer of an organisation does not protect you from personal liability in the event of defamation if by act or omission you defame someone. While extremely unlikely in this case as Bruce and Di admitted stealing the money and so are not of good character, they didn't steal from the BWRA.

While I agree that repeatedly bringing Yvonne and Tony into the debate may well be personal I don't think that the possibility of the treatment of Bruce and Di being personal as well should be excluded.

The similarities between the Yvonne and Tony case and that of Bruce and Di are clearly similar and I don't think it's unreasonable that comparisons are made. The opinion that there have been double standards applied is widespread.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion as to what should happen regarding Bruce and Di membership but my view is that the final outcome should be achieved in a fair, open and consistent way. My opinion, based on events that are a matter of record, is that this hasn't happened.

I'm not actually bothered as to what people’s opinion as to what a suitable punishment is. One of my long standing friends in favour of the life ban and I respect his opinion because I know it's made without malice.

The problem with tolerating mob rule or unfair treatment of a member, no matter how unworthy you feel they are, on the basis is it doesn't affect you is that the same could happen to you and everyone will let the unfair treatment happen to you for a quiet life and to just get on with the fun side of racing. This is how bullies thrive and the weak are sidelined. We have been here before and I have little faith in the whippet racing fraternity looking after its own. More a case of I'm alright Jack. Some might be perfectly happy with this state of affairs but you never know who will be next - or perhaps we do.

Perversely if you have enough influence, power or a hold over those that do, it seems to me you can get away with pretty much anything

 

[mutley]

thats what i meant tony but seriously very well put :thumbsup:

 

[ahorsnall]

I was one of those  who  ticked  only one box for her and one box for him ----- as that i understand was the correct procedure to follow --for an indefinite suspension of their membership ---I also signed mine as i am proud to stand up and be counted ---nothing to hide nothing to fear thats my view---

steve

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The problem with interpreting ticking one box only as being the correct procedure is that it means the ballot would reasonably be construed as being biased towards a lifetime ban. It is easy to demonstrate that under this interpretation of ticking only one box as being the correct procedure that the lifetime ban option could receive the most votes while at the same time being the minority of votes cast.

It doesn't matter whether this is the correct interpretation of how to complete the ballot or not, only that a member or members thought this to be the case to demonstrate the ballot is unfair. Certainly that was my initial interpretation of the ballot.

At the NW BWRA region AGM there was a majority of views that the ballot was confusing and open to different interpretation on the correct way to complete. It is possible to answer all questions in a logical consistent way. However it is also true that it is possible to answer the questions separately in a way that is nonsense - you could vote for no action on question 1 and for a lifetime ban on question 2.

It would be interesting to find out if any of the 9 ballot papers that were invalid were made invalid for this reason.

Signing the ballot could possibly leave you liable to a defamation charge. Being the member or an officer of an organisation does not protect you from personal liability in the event of defamation if by act or omission you defame someone. While extremely unlikely in this case as Bruce and Di admitted stealing the money and so are not of good character, they didn't steal from the BWRA.

While I agree that repeatedly bringing Yvonne and Tony into the debate may well be personal I don't think that the possibility of the treatment of Bruce and Di being personal as well should be excluded.

The similarities between the Yvonne and Tony case and that of Bruce and Di are clearly similar and I don't think it's unreasonable that comparisons are made. The opinion that there have been double standards applied is widespread.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion as to what should happen regarding Bruce and Di membership but my view is that the final outcome should be achieved in a fair, open and consistent way. My opinion, based on events that are a matter of record, is that this hasn't happened.

I'm not actually bothered as to what people’s opinion as to what a suitable punishment is. One of my long standing friends in favour of the life ban and I respect his opinion because I know it's made without malice.

The problem with tolerating mob rule or unfair treatment of a member, no matter how unworthy you feel they are, on the basis is it doesn't affect you is that the same could happen to you and everyone will let the unfair treatment happen to you for a quiet life and to just get on with the fun side of racing. This is how bullies thrive and the weak are sidelined. We have been here before and I have little faith in the whippet racing fraternity looking after its own. More a case of I'm alright Jack. Some might be perfectly happy with this state of affairs but you never know who will be next - or perhaps we do.

Perversely if you have enough influence, power or a hold over those that do, it seems to me you can get away with pretty much anything

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

the votes have been counted live with it :thumbsup: less u agree with theft as a normal thing :thumbsup:

 

[ahorsnall]

LOOK IF YOU THINK JUST BECAUSE THEY MIGHT BE YOURE FRIENDS DOESNT EXCUSE WHAT THEY DID.AND ITS NOT BULLY TATICS BUT THEFT FRAUD SO WHY WOULD MEMBERS THINK THEY BE TREATED THE SAME IF DONT DO THE SAME CRIMES.you had youre vote and just because most members that did vote went against what you wanted doesnt make it wrong but right by the majority :thumbsup:

 

[ahorsnall]

I believe your right Chris ...its a horrible situation when so called friends will steal from you and others ... i am not defending what they have done i just asked did you read Tony's post properly...And how can people be called friends that do take yours and others  belongings and money ...beats me

I did how ever say that the outcome of the postal vote where it was done right or wrong turned out to be no different to the vote taken at the agm ...also believe the out come of other things voted on at the agm would be the same

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

:thumbsup: correct dee

 

[Karen-Coral]

I was one of those  who  ticked  only one box for her and one box for him ----- as that i understand was the correct procedure to follow --for an indefinite suspension of their membership ---I also signed mine as i am proud to stand up and be counted ---nothing to hide nothing to fear thats my view---

steve

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The problem with interpreting ticking one box only as being the correct procedure is that it means the ballot would reasonably be construed as being biased towards a lifetime ban. It is easy to demonstrate that under this interpretation of ticking only one box as being the correct procedure that the lifetime ban option could receive the most votes while at the same time being the minority of votes cast.

It doesn't matter whether this is the correct interpretation of how to complete the ballot or not, only that a member or members thought this to be the case to demonstrate the ballot is unfair. Certainly that was my initial interpretation of the ballot.

At the NW BWRA region AGM there was a majority of views that the ballot was confusing and open to different interpretation on the correct way to complete. It is possible to answer all questions in a logical consistent way. However it is also true that it is possible to answer the questions separately in a way that is nonsense - you could vote for no action on question 1 and for a lifetime ban on question 2.

It would be interesting to find out if any of the 9 ballot papers that were invalid were made invalid for this reason.

Signing the ballot could possibly leave you liable to a defamation charge. Being the member or an officer of an organisation does not protect you from personal liability in the event of defamation if by act or omission you defame someone. While extremely unlikely in this case as Bruce and Di admitted stealing the money and so are not of good character, they didn't steal from the BWRA.

While I agree that repeatedly bringing Yvonne and Tony into the debate may well be personal I don't think that the possibility of the treatment of Bruce and Di being personal as well should be excluded.

The similarities between the Yvonne and Tony case and that of Bruce and Di are clearly similar and I don't think it's unreasonable that comparisons are made. The opinion that there have been double standards applied is widespread.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion as to what should happen regarding Bruce and Di membership but my view is that the final outcome should be achieved in a fair, open and consistent way. My opinion, based on events that are a matter of record, is that this hasn't happened.

I'm not actually bothered as to what people’s opinion as to what a suitable punishment is. One of my long standing friends in favour of the life ban and I respect his opinion because I know it's made without malice.

The problem with tolerating mob rule or unfair treatment of a member, no matter how unworthy you feel they are, on the basis is it doesn't affect you is that the same could happen to you and everyone will let the unfair treatment happen to you for a quiet life and to just get on with the fun side of racing. This is how bullies thrive and the weak are sidelined. We have been here before and I have little faith in the whippet racing fraternity looking after its own. More a case of I'm alright Jack. Some might be perfectly happy with this state of affairs but you never know who will be next - or perhaps we do.

Perversely if you have enough influence, power or a hold over those that do, it seems to me you can get away with pretty much anything

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

What a load of complete ------------------it did at no point mention a life time ban !!!!it did say suspend membership indefinitely---words mean so much when used by lawyers ---------------with or without a signature ----to accompany them ---

steve

 

[Karen-Coral]

Bit i forgot to add like Chris has said the votes are in and counted so lets get on with the racing --

Lets Just Remember ----

-Both these couples have had a much fairer deal than Steve/Julie ever had

without all this sort of outcry

being the couple they are walked away with dignity ---a very sad loss to whippet racing in general--one of whippet racings blackest days---and one that can never be rectified

they also had a fairer deal than

Colin Nevision who owned Avalanche and mark P--

where were all those who want justice to be tempered with mercy then???

and yes Tony we all are entitled to a opinion on all things that go on in our lives ---

this is mine

Steve

 

[Karen-Coral]

I would think Dee that the regional/rep for the area in question is like any other voted on ----i think you are lucky really that you dont have her/him in your area --or ours --

steve