Is It True

[mutley]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

i for one think what the treasurer did was terrible and in no way am i trying to make it sound not to be :rant: but in legal terms people must be carefull

 

[rob67]

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:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

There were plenty there at the AGM that weren't there karen for the first time, was my first one too and I'm not saying anyone is to blame, more so that we all lived in glass houses that day, and lately there have been a lot of stones thrown! Perhaps this discussion needed to go to the general racing community rather than the one that represents those that race at opens. Maybe the discussions at grass roots levels might be less flavoured by friendships and more by common sense.

chris

 

[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

<{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:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

apparently not

 

[sadieandco]

There were plenty there at the AGM that weren't there karen for the first time, was my first one too and I'm not saying anyone is to blame, more so that we all lived in glass houses that day, and lately there have been a lot of stones thrown! Perhaps this discussion needed to go to the general racing community rather than the one that represents those that race at opens. Maybe the discussions at grass roots levels might be less flavoured by friendships and more by common sense.

chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

/quote]

I wasnt at meeting so cant comment on what was done rightly or wrongly - when you say grass roots levels - if voting forms have gone out to all members of BWRA i would think that should cover all levels of racers as most (not all) make themselves members - but if people are not going to return their forms for fear of legal repercussions then again the BWRA have wasted time and money and we still wont have got any further with the saga.

 

[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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

now that is liable quoting others who would never steal

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

sorry, I don't understand

 

[ahorsnall]

tony you said weve been here before saying as they are the same as the bruce and di ?

 

[mutley]

There were plenty there at the AGM that weren't there karen for the first time, was my first one too and I'm not saying anyone is to blame, more so that we all lived in glass houses that day, and lately there have been a lot of stones thrown! Perhaps this discussion needed to go to the general racing community rather than the one that represents those that race at opens. Maybe the discussions at grass roots levels might be less flavoured by friendships and more by common sense.

chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

/quote]

I wasnt at meeting so cant comment on what was done rightly or wrongly - when you say grass roots levels - if voting forms have gone out to all members of BWRA i would think that should cover all levels of racers as most (not all) make themselves members - but if people are not going to return their forms for fear of legal repercussions then again the BWRA have wasted time and money and we still wont have got any further with the saga.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Dee here sorry i didn't read the form full it has a box to tick to abstain ..

 

[Tony Taylor]

tony you said weve been here before saying as they are the same as the bruce and di ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

No

I meant that national committees have banned racers unfairly.

 

[hellbound]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

sorry to correct you chris but i did point out to the meeting and the top table that no proposal should go to the floor or be voted on, that said i think most people could not be heard over other group's shouting and the order of the agm was who could shout over everyone else and i think we all know who won that

 

[Tony Taylor]

tony you said weve been here before saying as they are the same as the bruce and di ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

No

I meant that national committees have banned racers unfairly.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Ist main legal reason the word Banned should not be used ....withholding or refusing memberships is legal not banned ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

In a non democratic committee run organisation perhaps but withholding memebership in a members run organisation without a mandate ( from the membership) amounts to the same thing,

 

[hellbound]

right as i see it the committee are trying to put right what was voted on at the A.G.M think the vote went 28 for a ban and 7 against, not sure how many members the bwra have but 35 members voting on anything is not democratic of a members run organization, they are now trying to put this right and sending out a postal vote that your reg rep, agreed to if as member you have a problem with this vote go to your rep's the same rep's who said this was ok for there reg members dont put it at the top table they are doing what was agreed by your rep's at the meeting on the 17th 12 2007

SEE YOUR REP AND ASK WHY THEY PUT THIS FORWARD

 

[hellbound]

would like to add that most of your rep's are k9 members and seem only to happy to sit back and let the top table take all the stick for this vote going out,

yet the reps were ask to talk to there members and take your view's to the meeting on the 17 /12 /07 if your now saying this was not what you wanted then get back to your rep's not the top table they are only doing what your rep's voted for them to do on your behalf

 

[milly]

You lot want to try going on one of these at night, alot better than k9 -_- :lol:

 

[Doreen Hopkins]

Hello

as far as I can see the BWRA National Committee are damned if they deal with it and damned if they don't deal with it, so what are they supposed to do.

They are in a no win situation, and of course none of the committee can come on to this web site and explain why they have taken the steps that they have taken.

IMO if you have a voting form and you don't agree that it should have been a BWRA matter then tick abstain and perhaps a little note on it stating that you don't think it is a BWRA matter.

Of course if you have strong views about the situation then vote the way that you want it to be handled.

Lets hope that this problem gets resolved quickly and we can get on with planning our racing

regards

Doreen :thumbsup:

 

[salvageman]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

i put my name on the post its MICK , the reason non ped racing is in decline is because nobdy knows what they are doing, get some advice before taking action then you know what the repercussions may be if any. mick

 

[Fleesh]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Thankyou Steve :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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

sorry to correct you chris but i did point out to the meeting and the top table that no proposal should go to the floor or be voted on, that said i think most people could not be heard over other group's shouting and the order of the agm was who could shout over everyone else and i think we all know who won that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Don't mind being corrected Yvonne

 

[Tony Taylor]

as far as I can see the BWRA National Committee are damned if they deal with it and damned if they don't deal with it, so what are they supposed to do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

What the BWRA National Committee are supposed to do is follow the rules of the BWRA. There is no excuse for the committee not knowing the rules. The situation ought to have been dealt with by the National Committee in acordance with rule 8. The AGM was a farce. Voting in of proposals should never happen at the AGM. Any proposals put to the chair at the AGM should be discussed and a vote taken to allow that proposal to go forward for the postal vote or not.

There is no rule as far as I can see that states that proposals are to be every two years. Rule 27 clearly states and I quote " Voting on proposals for changes to the rules is allowed each year and should be by postal vote". Unless the BWRA committee can provide evidence that this rule has been changed by a postal vote then it still applies.

If the committee had followed the rules then no member could argue with whatever outcome was decided whether they like the outcome or not since all members should be aware of the rules governing the BWRA since they recieve a copy of the rules with their BWRA card. Those that don't like the rules perhaps ought not to join the organisation or attempt to change the rules via the proposal system.

They are in a no win situation, and of course none of the committee can come on to this web site and explain why they have taken the steps that they have taken.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The committee are not in a no win situation. If they follow the rules they are doing what is required of them.

There is absolutly no reason whatsoever why the BWRA committee cannot come on this web site to answer these questions. Moreover the BWRA has two websites of it's own to update members.. The NNWRF keeps it's members informed of their business via the internet and they certainly don't have thes sort of problems. The BWRA committee are soley to blame for the lack of communication with their members. I can't help but feel the committees unwillingness to discuss things openly is connected to the mismangement of their affairs. Sticking your head in the sand isn't the answer.

IMO if you have a voting form and you don't agree that it should have been a BWRA matter then tick abstain and perhaps a little note on it stating that you don't think it is a BWRA matter.
Of course if you have strong views about the situation then vote the way that you want it to be handled.

Lets hope that this problem gets resolved quickly and we can get on with planning our racing

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The voting form for the Bellwoods affair is poorly devised at best and rigged at worst.

There is no vote for taking action against them that doesn't involve a ban. The first proposal for each of them is clearly mutualy exclusive of the second and third proposals if you vote for no action. The second proposal is either yes or no but the third proposal puts you to an election with four choices. Clearly there is the potential for more votes to be cast for indefinate suspension than any of the individual ban terms.

This problem requires dealing with in the proper way and not brushing aside as quickly as possible. All members deserve that regardless of any individuals personal opinion of them.

 

[Karen-Coral]

Where is the Money to pay for these Solicitors going to be acquired from?????

your all so worried about --

they wont work for nothing ---

Those who have money certainly don't waste it---- unless its not theirs in the first place which is how we arrived here in the first place ---

I certainly would not be loosing any sleep worrying about it ---

Steve

 

[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

<{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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

what you on about