Nnwrf Members Meeting At Highgate

[Tony Taylor]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

AFAIK Tony although this is hearsay when the meeting took place to reform the NNWRF it was stated(I was told)that it was formed as a democratic organisation.Unlike the OLD NWRF which was infact a commitee run organisation,are you saying then that my information is wrong

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

You may be correct but as far as I am aware no elections have been held and no proposals voted on . I presume it's still being run along the lines of the old NWRF by the committee but in all honesty I don't know whether it's truly democratic or not.

It's an interesting topic in it's own right and would be perhaps better as a new topic where it can be answered and discussed unconnected to this event.

 

[Tony Taylor]

Also Tony one of the commitee members as stated that the fraud squad have already been informed,surely the fraud squad would not have been informed on 'hearsay evidence'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The fraud squad may have been informed but unless those with full knowledge of the facts report them we don't know what they are and any mention of what may or may not have happened remains hearsay as far as this site is concerned

 

[Paws123]

If the NNWRF Members on k9 do wait for Linda Broom ( chairperson) to come on K9 a full account & statement will be posted this will also be getting published in the next whippet news for members that where not present today and don't have Internet access

I am sure all your question will be answered in a appropriate manner will the full facts

 

[rodders]

Also Tony one of the commitee members as stated that the fraud squad have already been informed,surely the fraud squad would not have been informed on 'hearsay evidence'

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The fraud squad may have been informed but unless those with full knowledge of the facts report them we don't know what they are and any mention of what may or may not have happened remains hearsay as far as this site is concerned

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

You are correct Tony we on here do not know the full facts,and I await the full facts being printed on here by hopefully the chairman.If however this does not happen then members who were unable to attend today will draw conclusions on speculation.Not a good thing better we as members know the truth.Finally I do not take Denises words has hearsay,i'm sure she would only state facts

 

[rodders]

If the NNWRF Members on k9 do wait for Linda Broom ( chairperson) to come on K9  a full account & statement will be posted this will also be getting published in the next whippet news for members that where not present today and don't have Internet access
I  am sure all your question will be answered in a appropriate manner will the full facts

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Thankyou Dee :thumbsup: Karen

 

[rob67]

The Theft Act 1968 Section1 (1) states that a person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.

Interesting comments tony regarding theft,IMO anyone who uses monies in an account specifically not their own, for their own personal use is guilty of an offence under the above act. The only possible dispute is the word permanent I guess. I have to say also that when I joined the NNWRF I wasn't aware that I had joined an undemocratic society with the sole responsibility for decisions being made by a committee. I think it is only fair to say that it must be a difficult time for everone else on the Fed committee at the moment and would hope that people allow them the oportunity to sort the return of the money out, and then look to the membership for their opinion regarding any bans etc.

Chris

 

[Karen-Coral]

IMO.......(in my opinion rodders)-Lol 8)

The best place for this matter is in the WHIPPET NEWS or personal letter/s to all members but that would be expensive.....

(for those who couldn't attend today-that is)

Karen B.

 

[cliff hanger]

As a NNWRF member I attended this meeting today, and felt that the commitee were in full control of the situation.

They put the facts of the matter to the members and made me feel that there was no cover up, suspended the persons involved and listened to our views.

I won't mention names because I feel that if you can't be bothered to attend this meeting, why should I be bothered to give you line & verse.

cliff

 

[Tony Taylor]

The Theft Act 1968 Section1 (1) states that a person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
Interesting comments tony regarding theft,IMO anyone who uses monies in an account specifically not their own, for their own personal use is guilty of an offence under the above act. The only possible dispute is the word permanent I guess. I have to say also that when I joined the NNWRF I wasn't aware that I had joined an undemocratic society with the sole responsibility for decisions being made by a committee. I think it is only fair to say that it must be a difficult time for everone else on the Fed committee at the moment and would hope that people allow them the oportunity to sort the return of the money out, and then look to the membership for their opinion regarding any bans etc.

Chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I doubt whether you could show without reasonable doubt that the intention was to "permanently deprive" which is why such types of misdameanours aren't routinely prosecuted and generaly remain an internal matter for the organisations involved.

I agree with the rest of your post :thumbsup:

 

[sharon whincop]

The Theft Act 1968 Section1 (1) states that a person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
Interesting comments tony regarding theft,IMO anyone who uses monies in an account specifically not their own, for their own personal use is guilty of an offence under the above act. The only possible dispute is the word permanent I guess. I have to say also that when I joined the NNWRF I wasn't aware that I had joined an undemocratic society with the sole responsibility for decisions being made by a committee. I think it is only fair to say that it must be a difficult time for everone else on the Fed committee at the moment and would hope that people allow them the oportunity to sort the return of the money out, and then look to the membership for their opinion regarding any bans etc.

Chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I doubt whether you could show without reasonable doubt that the intention was to "permanently deprive" which is why such types of misdameanours aren't routinely prosecuted and generaly remain an internal matter for the organisations involved.

I agree with the rest of your post :thumbsup:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

So its ok to take money belonging to other people aslong as its payed back when your found out. Not in the world I come from, its stealing. I agree with every thing you said Rob.

 

[ahorsnall]

The Theft Act 1968 Section1 (1) states that a person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
Interesting comments tony regarding theft,IMO anyone who uses monies in an account specifically not their own, for their own personal use is guilty of an offence under the above act. The only possible dispute is the word permanent I guess. I have to say also that when I joined the NNWRF I wasn't aware that I had joined an undemocratic society with the sole responsibility for decisions being made by a committee. I think it is only fair to say that it must be a difficult time for everone else on the Fed committee at the moment and would hope that people allow them the oportunity to sort the return of the money out, and then look to the membership for their opinion regarding any bans etc.

Chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

well said i agree with every thing you said :thumbsup:

 

[jackie thubron]

The Theft Act 1968 Section1 (1) states that a person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
Interesting comments tony regarding theft,IMO anyone who uses monies in an account specifically not their own, for their own personal use is guilty of an offence under the above act. The only possible dispute is the word permanent I guess. I have to say also that when I joined the NNWRF I wasn't aware that I had joined an undemocratic society with the sole responsibility for decisions being made by a committee. I think it is only fair to say that it must be a difficult time for everone else on the Fed committee at the moment and would hope that people allow them the oportunity to sort the return of the money out, and then look to the membership for their opinion regarding any bans etc.

Chris

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

well said i agree with every thing you said :thumbsup:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Here here, I agree also

 

[rodders]

As a NNWRF member I attended this meeting today, and felt that the commitee were in full control of the situation.They put the facts of the matter to the members and made me feel that there was no cover up, suspended the persons involved and listened to our views.

I won't mention names because I feel that if you can't be bothered to attend this meeting, why should I be bothered to give you line & verse.

cliff

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

If you are refering to me Cliff,then it was not a case of not being bothered to attend.It was a case of not knowing about the meeting until today.Just because I wasn't able to attend the meeting doesn't mean i'm not bothered about it and the events leading up to the meeting Karen

 

[rob67]

Tony,I think the only way you can safely indicate that you intend to pay anything back is to admit that you are taking it in the first place!! In my mind if you do not say you are taking it,and then make no effort to pay it back, then it would appear you intend to deceive. What would have been a 'permanent' arrangement became a 'temporary' one because someone found a discrepancy.

As we were at the meeting we have not minded at all passing the info on that the committee gave out to those in our club that couldn't attend, as it is the right of all members to have the same info. I am sure that the committe will make available to everyone the details they gave out within the fastest timescale they can work to and in the most appropriate manner.

chris

 

[wild whippies]

Ok I don't know what the situation is or what was said at the meeting today, all I have is hearsay so far...

However, I've seen many a thread posted on k9 where people have chose to have their dogs PTS because of financial reasons. My own personal feeling is I would beg, steal and borrow to save my dogs lives. Now I don't know what the money was used for and I'm not saying what's happened is forgivable but I would wait to see the full facts before calling out the lynching mob.

 

[ahorsnall]

Ok I don't know what the situation is or what was said at the meeting today, all I have is hearsay so far...
However, I've seen many a thread posted on k9 where people have chose to have their dogs PTS because of financial reasons. My own personal feeling is I would beg, steal and borrow to save my dogs lives. Now I don't know what the money was used for and I'm not saying what's happened is forgivable but I would wait to see the full facts before calling out the lynching mob.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

hope you not putting up for tresurer then

 

[rob67]

We've just paid out over £1000 for jack's leg to be fixed and it's still ongoing, we scrimped and saved to pay for it, as I'm sure many dog owners have over the years and we certainly won't be the last. It's extremely emotional when your dog's life is at stake, and one I can sympathise with. But it's not an excuse. There has been no lynching mob, perhaps people wishing to see some degree of justice.

chris

 

[ahorsnall]

Ok I don't know what the situation is or what was said at the meeting today, all I have is hearsay so far...
However, I've seen many a thread posted on k9 where people have chose to have their dogs PTS because of financial reasons. My own personal feeling is I would beg, steal and borrow to save my dogs lives. Now I don't know what the money was used for and I'm not saying what's happened is forgivable but I would wait to see the full facts before calling out the lynching mob.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

so you saying jaq no money was taken before resent vets bills?ive been told different to that but it will come out im sure and was told for other reasons im sure if was for vets many people would donate money to help imo excuses as shouldnt take from friends sorry but my opion :thumbsup: chris

 

[Susan]

I will wait for the whippet news to find out what the hell is going on :thumbsup: . I for one have had a large vet fee (2 dogs at 1 time),,BJ Who got his leg too off after 12 weeks of trying to save it £1300.40,,we pet homed him as he bite Rachel,,Abbey was amost £2000 she has every test under the sun, a week on the royal dick vet hospital (she died at 4 years old, due to cance in the small intestine) but we paid the bill,,,,,paying it up after each treatment :thumbsup: .

To be haunest, We were not at the meeting as we dont bend race, but did hear it second hand , Ive still no idea why they took the money, but wish they had asked us non peds for help if it was for vet fee's Im sure we would have all chipped in to help them as imoh are very liked racers, who would be looking for help with their dogs.

I may be barking around the wrong tree, but till, the report is in the whippet news, I wont know why they took the money in the first place :cheers:

 

[wild whippies]

hope you not putting up for tresurer then 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I'm actually treasurer for Westhoughton and the North West BWRA (w00t)

As for your comments about whether monies were taken prior, I again say I do not know the facts. Like Susan says they we're well liked amongst racers and I think many would of offered financial support, having to ask friends for loans is difficult and can test any friendship though.

It may be embarrassing for the people concerned but I do hope they offer some explanation in the hope we have some understanding of their actions.