Is It True

[Fleesh]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

6. Rita Young then expressed her disgust in Mr and Mrs Bellwoods taking the NNWRF funds, as this money belongs to all of us. Tony Cooper said the BWRA is a democratic organisation, and it was up to the members to decide what to do about the situation. A letter was then read out from wallsend wrc, stating that anyone currently under a ban from either the BWRA or NNWRF would not be allowed to race at Wallsend WRC. Rita Young then proposed that Bruce and Di Bellwood be banned from the bwra for life, this was seconded by P.Johnson. Votes for 28... Against 7

Out of interest who is P.Johnson, not looking to name names but I've just been "questioned" about this. Yes our surname is Johnson but there's nobody here with a name beginning with P. so the caller in question can just P-OFF !!! Mum was working 24hour shift the day of the AGM so we weren't even there. :clown:

 

[mutley]

totaly agree with suzie :thumbsup:

 

[hellbound]

A big round of applause for the BWRA Top TableYet again another wasted AGM members  spending  their well earned wages on unnecessary fuel money to be a part of votes taken that day

How come members that attended the AGM are been dictated to once again .

Who says that the chairman has to take full control over the meeting , has he not proved at the previous 3-4 years AGM he has no control and make decisions that he know too well he has no intentions of keeping

If the BWRA Top Table can not fulfill the requests-votes-wishes of the members then lets hope they will consider resigning with some dignity .

With the AGM in mind votes were taken whether mistakes were made or not, by the majority of members that at their own expenses (not funded by the BWRA funds unlike the top tables) and should be carried out, not swept under the carpet because they dont want to or they can not be bothered with the extra work, no body forces them to take these positions, the re-elections proved that was done wrongly as well.

The BWRA can only say that in the light of what they have done they are not a good role model for the sport and refuse to do as there  members wish

AOB

1.Paul Jennings asked if a BWRA member had asked for a dog to be tested at the straight champs, quite a heated discussion followed. Alison Armstrong informed Paul, that no dog was going to be tested & as usual, it was all down to certain people who dont give their names, spreading rumors, trying to cause trouble.

2. Vicky Harper was then put forward to take over as the new top gun compiler, this was agreed by everyone. The top gun format was then discussed and it was agreed that each BWRA region would be allowed 2 opens to count for top gun points, plus all BWRA national events, more information will follow from Vicky.

3. L.Broom asked if the 36lb & 40lb scratch could be added to the regional team events, no objections were put forward, so these will now be included in team events.

4 The veteran championships, were then discussed, it was agreed that these would now be held on separate days. The sidewinder saunter remains for racing champions only, and the veteran champs is open to all veterans, dogs can only enter one event.

5. Tony Cooper then expressed how sick he was of all the rubbish being put on the internet by people that do not back up what they say, with a name, and he though moderators should take it off as it was just causing trouble. Tony Taylor said he had no control over it.

6. Rita Young then expressed her disgust in Mr and Mrs Bellwoods taking the NNWRF funds, as this money belongs to all of us. Tony Cooper said the BWRA is a democratic organisation, and it was up to the members to decide what to do about the situation. A letter was then read out from wallsend wrc, stating that anyone currently under a ban from either the BWRA or NNWRF would not be allowed to race at Wallsend WRC. Rita Young then proposed that Bruce and Di Bellwood be banned from the bwra for life, this was seconded by P.Johnson. Votes for 28... Against 7.

7 Gary Bailey then asked if this also applied to Tony Weatherson & Yvonne Ragnolli. Erica redshaw stated that tony & Yvonne had served their BWRA ban and it should not be discussed any further. L.Broom said the tony and Yvonne situation should have been dealt with 3 years ago. The whole discussion got very heated with a lot of personal comments being made between both members. C.Brekin then said she was new to the sport & thought the situation was like children in the playground fighting to which a round of applause followed. L.Broom then proposed that anyone under a ban from the BWRA could not be a BWRA regional rep, seconded by M.Cahill. For 32 against 1.

8 Mark warren then asked for a hard line to be taken on people using drugs for personal use, as this is a family sport. Anyone proving to be using drugs, the police to be informed and the said person/s involved would be immediately banned, everyone agreed.

9 Drug testing was then discussed. P.Jennings proposed to reinstate testing, seconded c.horsnall. For 38 against 0. After a lengthy discussion, it was agreed that random drug testing would now take place, members would need to sign a disclaimer, and £10 would be added to the membership to help cover the cost of this.

10 A. Armstrong said that she thought the 28 day rule for membership & registration applies to all, and not just the new ones, and if that was the case when was it changed? It was agreed that the 28 day rule from 2008 applies to all.

11J.Meades asked if anything had been done about the letter he sent in March, he was told that it had.

12 M.Warren said that he did not agree with workers getting expenses, no other comments were made on this subject.

Meeting closed...3.20, proposed C.Cornish, seconded D.Bailey.

A straight answer BWRA please are numbers 6-7-9 still standing or are they not and if these questions are not answered what the feeling of k9 members about an on-line petition been set up to get as many signature as we can to ask the Top Table to do their jobs and reconsider the above

If for what ever reasons the top table are not carrying on with 7-9 why did they not added them both to the postal vote that is out now

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

chairman / chairwoman / chairperson " person in charge of a company's board of directors or a meeting "

Tony Cooper's not been Chairman for 3 /4 years,

the bwra should still have A.G.M every year its upto members if they want to attend any agm, alot of members don't attend because there understanding was that no proposal's would be put forward at this agm,

had it been a proposal meeting then any proposal should go out to a postal vote every payed up member of the bwra should have a say in the running of there organization

 

[salvageman]

,Salvageman, that is wishful thinking, how do you know they both spent the money. Like i said Die was in charge of the money.[you will never know whether they both spent it.] so whos to say Bruce is untrustworthy.  Some people are just hellbent on banning them both whether they are guilty or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

if my wife had spent over 4 grand of anybodies money i would have known so to turn a blind eye to it is the same as spending it ,plus they both pi-s in the same pot.mick

 

[Karen-Coral]

6. Rita Young then expressed her disgust in Mr and Mrs Bellwoods taking the NNWRF funds, as this money belongs to all of us. Tony Cooper said the BWRA is a democratic organisation, and it was up to the members to decide what to do about the situation. A letter was then read out from wallsend wrc, stating that anyone currently under a ban from either the BWRA or NNWRF would not be allowed to race at Wallsend WRC. Rita Young then proposed that Bruce and Di Bellwood be banned from the bwra for life, this was seconded by P.Johnson. Votes for 28... Against 7

Out of interest who is P.Johnson, not looking to name names but I've just been "questioned" about this. Yes our surname is Johnson but there's nobody here with a name beginning with P. so the caller in question can just P-OFF !!! Mum was working 24hour shift the day of the AGM so we weren't even there. :clown:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I think you will find that it was P.Jobson not Johnson---not that it makes any difference to the eventual outcome -----

i think that if nothing had been done rightly or wrongly there would have been quite a number of members that would not be re-newing their memberships of the BWRA

this might still be the case ---- who knows?

the committee are damed if they do and damed if they don't do anything -------- in a no win situation --- who would want a place on this top table ?????no I for sure-----

Having said that i have made my views known its up to the individual now if Karen has a different view then i would respect it as with any one else who has ---majority will prevail whatever--

steve

steve

 

[rob67]

A big round of applause for the BWRA Top TableYet again another wasted AGM members  spending  their well earned wages on unnecessary fuel money to be a part of votes taken that day

How come members that attended the AGM are been dictated to once again .

Who says that the chairman has to take full control over the meeting , has he not proved at the previous 3-4 years AGM he has no control and make decisions that he know too well he has no intentions of keeping

If the BWRA Top Table can not fulfill the requests-votes-wishes of the members then lets hope they will consider resigning with some dignity .

With the AGM in mind votes were taken whether mistakes were made or not, by the majority of members that at their own expenses (not funded by the BWRA funds unlike the top tables) and should be carried out, not swept under the carpet because they dont want to or they can not be bothered with the extra work, no body forces them to take these positions, the re-elections proved that was done wrongly as well.

The BWRA can only say that in the light of what they have done they are not a good role model for the sport and refuse to do as there  members wish

AOB

1.Paul Jennings asked if a BWRA member had asked for a dog to be tested at the straight champs, quite a heated discussion followed. Alison Armstrong informed Paul, that no dog was going to be tested & as usual, it was all down to certain people who dont give their names, spreading rumors, trying to cause trouble.

2. Vicky Harper was then put forward to take over as the new top gun compiler, this was agreed by everyone. The top gun format was then discussed and it was agreed that each BWRA region would be allowed 2 opens to count for top gun points, plus all BWRA national events, more information will follow from Vicky.

3. L.Broom asked if the 36lb & 40lb scratch could be added to the regional team events, no objections were put forward, so these will now be included in team events.

4 The veteran championships, were then discussed, it was agreed that these would now be held on separate days. The sidewinder saunter remains for racing champions only, and the veteran champs is open to all veterans, dogs can only enter one event.

5. Tony Cooper then expressed how sick he was of all the rubbish being put on the internet by people that do not back up what they say, with a name, and he though moderators should take it off as it was just causing trouble. Tony Taylor said he had no control over it.

6. Rita Young then expressed her disgust in Mr and Mrs Bellwoods taking the NNWRF funds, as this money belongs to all of us. Tony Cooper said the BWRA is a democratic organisation, and it was up to the members to decide what to do about the situation. A letter was then read out from wallsend wrc, stating that anyone currently under a ban from either the BWRA or NNWRF would not be allowed to race at Wallsend WRC. Rita Young then proposed that Bruce and Di Bellwood be banned from the bwra for life, this was seconded by P.Johnson. Votes for 28... Against 7.

7 Gary Bailey then asked if this also applied to Tony Weatherson & Yvonne Ragnolli. Erica redshaw stated that tony & Yvonne had served their BWRA ban and it should not be discussed any further. L.Broom said the tony and Yvonne situation should have been dealt with 3 years ago. The whole discussion got very heated with a lot of personal comments being made between both members. C.Brekin then said she was new to the sport & thought the situation was like children in the playground fighting to which a round of applause followed. L.Broom then proposed that anyone under a ban from the BWRA could not be a BWRA regional rep, seconded by M.Cahill. For 32 against 1.

8 Mark warren then asked for a hard line to be taken on people using drugs for personal use, as this is a family sport. Anyone proving to be using drugs, the police to be informed and the said person/s involved would be immediately banned, everyone agreed.

9 Drug testing was then discussed. P.Jennings proposed to reinstate testing, seconded c.horsnall. For 38 against 0. After a lengthy discussion, it was agreed that random drug testing would now take place, members would need to sign a disclaimer, and £10 would be added to the membership to help cover the cost of this.

10 A. Armstrong said that she thought the 28 day rule for membership & registration applies to all, and not just the new ones, and if that was the case when was it changed? It was agreed that the 28 day rule from 2008 applies to all.

11J.Meades asked if anything had been done about the letter he sent in March, he was told that it had.

12 M.Warren said that he did not agree with workers getting expenses, no other comments were made on this subject.

Meeting closed...3.20, proposed C.Cornish, seconded D.Bailey.

A straight answer BWRA please are numbers 6-7-9 still standing or are they not and if these questions are not answered what the feeling of k9 members about an on-line petition been set up to get as many signature as we can to ask the Top Table to do their jobs and reconsider the above

If for what ever reasons the top table are not carrying on with 7-9 why did they not added them both to the postal vote that is out now

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I'm sorry BWRA member but if you are not prepared to give the name under which you race at race meetings then I don't see why your comments should be accepted on K9. I'm sick pf people not accepting responsibility for their own comments. Either give a proper name or I think K9 should uphold it's rules and accept responsibility for people who might wish to post under different names. There is enough trouble being caused on here lately.

chris

 

[Tony Taylor]

the money was nothing to do with the BWRA & they both spent the  NNWRF,s money not the BWRA,s you are voting  to say if you want  un-trustworthy people as members .mick

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

If we were voting to say that the members don't want untrustworthy people in the sport then that is what should be on the voting form. However what is on the voting form is no such thing - it's simply a matter on voting to ban one or both of the Bellwoods.

Interestingly no one from the BWRA has given any reason for such a ban.

If we are going to ban people for being untrustworthy then shouldn't we ban other members who are untrustworthy as well. We can start with othe r officials who have used members funds for their own means then move onto anyone who's been sent to jail/convicted criminals, those that have passed off forged money at race meets, illegal drug users, drunk drivers, benefit cheats, tax dodgers, other cheats and liars and anyone else who just looks a bit dodgy.

Worse still the voting form looks rigged to me. I can't see any vote on this basis standing up in court and the BWRA committee would be liable in this instance.

 

[mutley]

spot on tony

 

[ahorsnall]

the money was nothing to do with the BWRA & they both spent the  NNWRF,s money not the BWRA,s you are voting  to say if you want  un-trustworthy people as members .mick

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

If we were voting to say that the members don't want untrustworthy people in the sport then that is what should be on the voting form. However what is on the voting form is no such thing - it's simply a matter on voting to ban one or both of the Bellwoods.

Interestingly no one from the BWRA has given any reason for such a ban.

If we are going to ban people for being untrustworthy then shouldn't we ban other members who are untrustworthy as well. We can start with othe r officials who have used members funds for their own means then move onto anyone who's been sent to jail/convicted criminals, those that have passed off forged money at race meets, illegal drug users, drunk drivers, benefit cheats, tax dodgers, other cheats and liars and anyone else who just looks a bit dodgy.

Worse still the voting form looks rigged to me. I can't see any vote on this basis standing up in court and the BWRA committee would be liable in this instance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

lawyer are we now?

 

[hellbound]

,Salvageman, that is wishful thinking, how do you know they both spent the money. Like i said Die was in charge of the money.[you will never know whether they both spent it.] so whos to say Bruce is untrustworthy.  Some people are just hellbent on banning them both whether they are guilty or not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

if my wife had spent over 4 grand of anybodies money i would have known so to turn a blind eye to it is the same as spending it ,plus they both pi-s in the same pot.mick

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

lol :wacko: :wacko:

if your wife was prosecuted for robbery in say thailand and you both went to prison ! because you would expect togo as well from reading your post after-all you must both do whatever in the same pot,

when you were let out of prison and landed in England would you expect togo straight back to prison here for the seem robbery

 

[mutley]

i think what tony means is something like let the first one without sin cast the first stone its just a pity last time this happened :- " people turned a blind eye :- " surly democracy will prevail when it goes to a vote i personally dont see how Bruce can be banned from bwra, and i for one will be voting not to ban but thats my choice same as everyone and of course i dont give a s..t who knows it

 

[Paws123]

i think what tony means is something like let the first one without sin cast the first stone  its just a pity last time this happened :- "  people turned a blind eye  :- " surly democracy will prevail when it goes to  a vote i personally dont see how Bruce can be banned from bwra, and i for one will be voting not to ban but thats my choice same as everyone and of course i dont give a s..t who knows it

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

You never give a s--t about what you say :- " lol bet your laptop keys are just warming up

 

[rodders]

the money was nothing to do with the BWRA & they both spent the  NNWRF,s money not the BWRA,s you are voting  to say if you want  un-trustworthy people as members .mick

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

If we were voting to say that the members don't want untrustworthy people in the sport then that is what should be on the voting form. However what is on the voting form is no such thing - it's simply a matter on voting to ban one or both of the Bellwoods.

Interestingly no one from the BWRA has given any reason for such a ban.

If we are going to ban people for being untrustworthy then shouldn't we ban other members who are untrustworthy as well. We can start with othe r officials who have used members funds for their own means then move onto anyone who's been sent to jail/convicted criminals, those that have passed off forged money at race meets, illegal drug users, drunk drivers, benefit cheats, tax dodgers, other cheats and liars and anyone else who just looks a bit dodgy.

Worse still the voting form looks rigged to me. I can't see any vote on this basis standing up in court and the BWRA committee would be liable in this instance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Tony I haven't recieved my voting form yet.Are you saying that there are no reasons on the form for the ban?I thought Joyce said we were voting because of the 'sport being brought in to disrepute' Karen

 

[johnnoble]

Well said Gar.

And as for Salvageman anybody who posts on here under a false name they are cowards and UNTRUSTWORHY they just come on to cause trouble.

 

[ahorsnall]

the money was nothing to do with the BWRA & they both spent the  NNWRF,s money not the BWRA,s you are voting  to say if you want  un-trustworthy people as members .mick

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

If we were voting to say that the members don't want untrustworthy people in the sport then that is what should be on the voting form. However what is on the voting form is no such thing - it's simply a matter on voting to ban one or both of the Bellwoods.

Interestingly no one from the BWRA has given any reason for such a ban.

If we are going to ban people for being untrustworthy then shouldn't we ban other members who are untrustworthy as well. We can start with othe r officials who have used members funds for their own means then move onto anyone who's been sent to jail/convicted criminals, those that have passed off forged money at race meets, illegal drug users, drunk drivers, benefit cheats, tax dodgers, other cheats and liars and anyone else who just looks a bit dodgy.

Worse still the voting form looks rigged to me. I can't see any vote on this basis standing up in court and the BWRA committee would be liable in this instance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

lawyer are we now?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Not hard to think about sensibly..once solicitors are involved over decisions made by coms/members legal advise should be looked into ..theres no rules or constitutions at present to cover the bwra in matters like this

Which ever way the vote goes liability may be a question

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

i agree in part dee but you know solicitors they always say you have a case as they get paid either way :thumbsup: as if was being technical every fed member could do the same against them too and all claim for what was beleaved not returned.and as the bwra member ship as the same people im sure this would be taken into account.imo this is about friends not right and wrong as all same people was calling for a ban last time round not nothing to do with bwra then?

 

[mutley]

with this going out to a vote it seems like double standards due to past events :- " i think they have been dealt with sufficiently by the fed.

 

[rodders]

Tony's dissappered :lol: Can anyone out there tell me what reason was given on the voting form for banning Bruce and Di please Karen

 

[Tony Taylor]

Tony's dissappered :lol: Can anyone out there tell me what reason was given on the voting form for banning Bruce and Di please Karen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

No reason given on the voting form I received.

 

[Tony Taylor]

Not hard to think about sensibly..once solicitors are involved over decisions made by coms/members legal advise should be looked into ..theres no rules or constitutions at present to cover the bwra in matters like this
Which ever way the vote goes liability may be a question

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Point being here is the committee have drafted the voting form and not the members and a) they have no mandate to do so and b) the voting form would reasonably be considered to be unfair.

 

[rodders]

Thanks for answering Tony :thumbsup: I know we all know what this is about,but must admit I am loath to vote on a form which has no reason why I am voting printed on it.Was there an accompanying letter?