Is It True

[Tony Taylor]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I received no accompanying letter.

You are asked to sign the form as well.

 

[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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Exactly Chris thats what Bruce's solicitor is saying (nothing to do with bwra) , I seeked loads of legal advise while dealing with the Bellwood v nnwrf even down to the amount of money that was owed, at 1st i came up with a high figure and without the proof of my amount...it had to be redone only on what we could prove and that was the figure that di signed a legal document for ...also in the document a disclaimer was added to protect the nnwrf and its members...then on the condition of the bank the consituition had to be brought up to date asp

I personally think i would of proposed the same as Rita at the bwra meeting , and as i stated in a previous post i don't think anyone of us member or com knew exactly what our legal rights are forward the agm

I wont be filling in any forms until someone explains the legal side of the situation ...i will how ever go along with the majority's decision ...because i haven't sent the form back in Just my own opinion

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

to be fair dee i honestly think if i our anyone else was in same position i wouldnt want to show my face again on a track but thats me and i know you would think the same but you or i wouldnt have done it in the 1st place

 

[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?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I received no accompanying letter.

You are asked to sign the form as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

How can you vote and sign a form,when you are not aware why you are voting.Think this has been a poor oversight on the part of the BWRA,and I now wonder wether it would be a waste of time voting,as i'm not sure if a vote would be held up as correct and proper.At this rate what with the AGM and now this,we could be still here discussing this subject in a years time

 

[rob67]

As far as i am aware there is an option on the form which states that you can abstain from the vote. What would people have liked to have seen on the voting form? Rather than criticise as per usual could we possibly have some useful comments?

I remember not so long ago that there were comments relating to how people should support the BWRA committee and help them, not criticise and create more mischief. I am sure that the regional reps will be adequately briefed on the vote,and that if we as BWRA members have any queries, they can contact their committee and clarify the situation for their members. We have just under 3 weeks to complete the forms and return them, enough time to seek clarity and return them should we so wish.

It concerns me that the BWRA attempts to correct their mistakes from the AGM will be ruined by a minority of people that wish to see people who have brought the sport into disrepute in this instance be let off because of prior misdemeanours of people who do not have a bearing in this example.

People should vote, or seek clarity as they see fit from their BWRA reps.

chris

 

[ahorsnall]

ok all i beleave if money was taken once twice our even three times if was hard times id have seen it as some of you do but to do it time and again over years is the problem i have with it.but the sad thing is either way now it could cause trouble between good members and that is what i call wrong when none have done wrong.

 

[rob67]

As far as i am aware there is an option on the form which states that you can abstain from the vote. What would people have liked to have seen on the voting form? Rather than criticise as per usual could we possibly have some useful comments?I remember not so long ago that there were comments relating to how people should support the BWRA committee and help them, not criticise and create more mischief. I am sure that the regional reps will be adequately briefed on the vote,and that if we as BWRA members have any queries, they can contact their committee and clarify the situation for their members. We have just under 3 weeks to complete the forms and return them, enough time to seek clarity and return them should we so wish.

It concerns me that the BWRA attempts to correct their mistakes from the AGM will be ruined by a minority of people that wish to see people who have brought the sport into disrepute in this instance be let off because of prior misdemeanours of people who do not have a bearing in this example.

People should vote, or seek clarity as they see fit from their BWRA reps.

chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

All i want to know is it legal

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

What happened when the voting form came to us all last year?We were all voting on various proposals, why did no-one question the validity of it then and if anyone has questions now why are they not referring back to their BWRA reps?

 

[mutley]

how can a man be found guilty of a crime without evidence in a court of law Bruce wasn't the treasurer whoes responsibility it was regarding money im in no way saying he didnt know its to hard to believe he didnt :- " and i personally would stand up bye my wifes side right or wrong BUT he wasn't the treasurer so how can he be tried for a crime without proof and i am not sticking up for anyone just how i see it and hope the bwra come out of this situation ok and we can get on with what we are all really in the sport for racing :thumbsup:

 

[rodders]

As far as i am aware there is an option on the form which states that you can abstain from the vote. What would people have liked to have seen on the voting form? Rather than criticise as per usual could we possibly have some useful comments?I remember not so long ago that there were comments relating to how people should support the BWRA committee and help them, not criticise and create more mischief. I am sure that the regional reps will be adequately briefed on the vote,and that if we as BWRA members have any queries, they can contact their committee and clarify the situation for their members. We have just under 3 weeks to complete the forms and return them, enough time to seek clarity and return them should we so wish.

It concerns me that the BWRA attempts to correct their mistakes from the AGM will be ruined by a minority of people that wish to see people who have brought the sport into disrepute in this instance be let off because of prior misdemeanours of people who do not have a bearing in this example.

People should vote, or seek clarity as they see fit from their BWRA reps.

chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Not criticising Chris,just want to make sure that this vote is being done in the correct manner.As I understood from Joyces post,this vote is because of the Bellwoods bringing the sport into disrepute.For those of us who attended the

AGM and have already voted,we now find we are having to vote again,do we not.I want to try and ensure that this is the last time I will have to vote on this issue.If every possible loop hole is covered then after this vote hopefully the subject will not raise its ugly head again. Karen

 

[wild whippies]

My concerns about the ballot form.

1. Not on letterheaded paper.

2.What reassurance have I got that confidentiality is guaranteed regarding my vote?

3. What does the number written in red ink represent?

4. There's no details given as to why a ban is being proposed.

5. There is no vote for 'no ban' but other action, choosing to abstain would not be an accurate representation of a persons intentions.

6. If 15% vote for no action (which of course isn't a given option at this moment and probably unlikely) 15% vote for a 1 year ban, 15% for a 2 year, 15% for 3 year and 15% for 5 year and the remainder voted for indefinate suspension (25%) What would the BWRA decisions be bearing in mind that ultimately 75% have voted for a different outcome than indefinate suspension?

 

[mutley]

last year was a proposal year chris ) this year was not thats why the bwra overturned the proposals bruce and di was a proposal also but still going ahead just saying it needs to be tred carefully

 

[ahorsnall]

last year was a proposal year chris  ) this year was not thats why the bwra overturned the proposals bruce and di was a proposal also but still going ahead  just saying it needs to be tred carefully

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

gaz i thought the rule was a proposal if voted in must stand for 2yrs not that any other proposals cant be put in the year after?that is what im told the ruling on the 2yr thing :thumbsup:

 

[rob67]

As far as i am aware there is an option on the form which states that you can abstain from the vote. What would people have liked to have seen on the voting form? Rather than criticise as per usual could we possibly have some useful comments?I remember not so long ago that there were comments relating to how people should support the BWRA committee and help them, not criticise and create more mischief. I am sure that the regional reps will be adequately briefed on the vote,and that if we as BWRA members have any queries, they can contact their committee and clarify the situation for their members. We have just under 3 weeks to complete the forms and return them, enough time to seek clarity and return them should we so wish.

It concerns me that the BWRA attempts to correct their mistakes from the AGM will be ruined by a minority of people that wish to see people who have brought the sport into disrepute in this instance be let off because of prior misdemeanours of people who do not have a bearing in this example.

People should vote, or seek clarity as they see fit from their BWRA reps.

chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Not criticising Chris,just want to make sure that this vote is being done in the correct manner.As I understood from Joyces post,this vote is because of the Bellwoods bringing the sport into disrepute.For those of us who attended the

AGM and have already voted,we now find we are having to vote again,do we not.I want to try and ensure that this is the last time I will have to vote on this issue.If every possible loop hole is covered then after this vote hopefully the subject will not raise its ugly head again. Karen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I agree karen, I am so bloomin sick of hearing abut this I just want it over and done with :thumbsup: I dont know what purpose it serves to continue with it. I was at the AGM too and find it interesting that most of the poeple on here commenting were, but none of us proposed that the vote shouldn't take place. If it was so wrong then why didn't someone with some knowledge of the rules stop it?Are we all liable because none of us proposed to stop this vote at the AGM and made it clear that we wished no part in the vote? I dont remember anyone walking out? If you don't like the way this vote has been conducted then follow what i would have thought would be the appropriate proceedure and contact your BWRA rep

chris

 

[mutley]

a meeting regarding bruce maybe should of been a diciplinary hearing with himself and the bwra before even going to members, there was a lot of hot overheated tempers in the room that day and did get out of hand i dont think anyones slagin bwra for any of this just that it needs to be done with care

 

[hellbound]

how can a man be found guilty of a crime without evidence   in a court of law Bruce wasn't the treasurer whoes responsibility it was regarding money   im in no way saying he didnt know its  to hard to believe he didnt  :- " and i personally would stand up bye my wifes side right or wrong BUT  he wasn't the treasurer so how can he be tried for a crime without proof and i am not sticking up for anyone just how i see it    and hope the bwra come out of this situation ok and we can get on with what we are all really in the sport for racing  :thumbsup:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

(w00t) (w00t) (w00t)

 

[ahorsnall]

a meeting regarding bruce maybe should of been a diciplinary hearing with himself and the bwra before even going to members, there was a lot of hot overheated tempers in the room that day and did get out of hand   i dont think anyones slagin bwra for any of this just that it needs to be done with care

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

i agree and maybe meetings being on same day was not a good idea but easy said after :thumbsup:

 

[rob67]

last year was a proposal year chris  ) this year was not thats why the bwra overturned the proposals bruce and di was a proposal also but still going ahead  just saying it needs to be tred carefully

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I know gaz The difficulty I have is that all the 'proposals' came under AOB, where do we stand with the definition of a 'proposal'. I don't know what makes it a proposal, rather than any other business. I don't know who might have been more vocal. committee, reps maybe? In some ways i would imagine people who have taken money from their racing friends would find it impossible to show their faces again, maybe I'm naive.

I'm gonna look in the common law refernces and see what test cases may have gone previously to see what legal implications there maybe.

chris

 

[Tony Taylor]

We've been here before with Rob Patterson, Jan Ambrosini, Steve and Julie Bateson, Mark Petite, Jane poole all banned by national bodies unreasonably and forced out of the sport.

What is consistant is that regardless of how unfair these sanctions were there was a portion of the whippet racing community who wanted to support the national committees implementing these unreasonable sanctions and to be happy to see these people mistreated just so they could get on with the "fun" side of racing and get back to racing with their "friends." Strangely it always seems to be the people in glass houses throwing the stones.

As far as I'm concerned people who will throw you to the wolves for their own self interest can't be considered your friends and having to tolerate their sanctimonoius bigotry at the track isn't my idea of fun either.

Whether the Bellwoods get banned or not makes no difference to me. I've known them for quite some time and wouldn't consider them my friends. What they have done is clearly wrong but if I had a choice of who ought to be thrown out of whippet racing they wouldn't be at the top of it by a long chalk.

 

[rodders]

You are so right Chris,I distinctly remember a discussion on K9 about proposals prior to the AGM,and i'm as guilty as the next as to getting carried away and voting at the AGM knowing it wasn't a proposals year.I also remember Yvonne saying it is not a proposals year at the AGM when Bruce and Di were being discussed.My only defence is that it was my 1st AGM :b Going back to this vote I am quite happy to take what Joyce said, as being the reason for this vote,and hope that once voting is over we will hear or read no more.Can't find a smiley praying :lol:

 

[ahorsnall]

We've been here before with Rob Patterson, Jan Ambrosini, Steve and Julie Bateson, Mark Petite, Jane poole all banned by national bodies unreasonably and forced out of the sport.
What is consistant is that regardless of how unfair these sanctions were there was a portion of the whippet racing community who wanted to support the national committees implementing these unreasonable sanctions and to be happy to see these people mistreated just so they could get on with the "fun" side of racing and get back to racing with their "friends." Strangely it always seems to be the people in glass houses throwing the stones.

As far as I'm concerned people who will throw you to the wolves for their own self interest can't be considered your friends and having to tolerate their sanctimonoius bigotry at the track isn't my idea of fun either.

Whether the Bellwoods get banned or not makes no difference to me. I've known them for quite some time and wouldn't consider them my friends. What they have done is clearly wrong but if I had a choice of who ought to be thrown out of whippet racing they wouldn't be at the top of it by a long chalk.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

now that is liable quoting others who would never steal

 

[mutley]

not stooping to you hellbound so dont bother :clown: