Nnwrf Members Meeting

[weathergirls]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

The committee would like to thank the BWRA for agreeing to us holding this meeting ahead of their AGM , meeting opened at 11am

AGENDA

1) MR AND MRS BELLWOOD

a full report on this issue will be put in Whippet News

it is hoped you will all respect this decision as it is only

right Mr and Mrs Bellwood are notified of the outcome

in writing first.

2) BEND SUPERLEAGUECHAMPIONSHIPS

It was agreed by the members present to run this event

on Saturday 24th November with weigh in for the

SUPERLEAGUE CONSOLATION T.T. until 2pm racing to

start 3pm

3) EASTER CLASSIC2008

After much discussion it was agreed for 2008 this

weekend event will be run on the bends the two venues

who are willing to stage this are HIGHGATE and

WESTHOUGHTON this will be agreed on at a later date

Meeting closed 1140am thanks to all who attended it was good to see so many take an interest and giving up their time

on behalf of the NNWRF committee

 

[marielou]

I just wanted to say Thank You to the committee for all their work involved in resolving this situation, I know it can't have been easy for any of you. It is due to all of your work and resolve that this has been dealt with in a timely and dignified manner. The meeting was extremely well managed with anyone wishing to able to put their points of view across.

Best wishes for a happy racing future for all of us

Marie and Graham

 

[johnnoble]

I think its terrible that you can ban somebody for life, it is their livelyhood.

[2yrs would of been ample] and to ban them fom both governing bodies is a disgrace,[youd think they had done murder] especially when the other 2 pra** got off so lightly. :rant:

 

[wild whippies]

Have to say I agree with John. It does seem unfair that an organisation can influence another with relation to one pair of individuals and have a totally different attitude to another pair.

Now I acknowledge I wasn't in racing when the previous alleged incidents happened, and I would of abstained on voting for this reason. But I do think that both organisations should act independantly, at least giving a person a second chance but also having the knowledge never to put that particular individual in a position that would make the organisation vulnerable.

 

[mutley]

totally agree :rant: but as part of the committee Ive got to say we had to put it to members and thats what they voted the same should of happened to the other 2 it seems like double standards :rant:

 

[Susan]

A life time ban With both BWRA and NNWRF

Wrong,,maybe 2 yrs )

 

[rodders]

totally agree  :rant: but as part of the committee Ive got to say we had to put it to members and thats what they voted the same should of happened to the other 2 it seems like double standards :rant:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Did my ears decieve me then Gary,because I thought I heard Linda say the commitee wanted a ban for life also Karen

 

[tanyia]

totally agree  :rant: but as part of the committee Ive got to say we had to put it to members and thats what they voted the same should of happened to the other 2 it seems like double standards :rant:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Did my ears decieve me then Gary,because I thought I heard Linda say the commitee wanted a ban for life also Karen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

In the end regardless of what the committee might of wanted it went to the members. IMO 2 years would of been enough as the money was paid back.

On another note we were not able to go :rant: After ringing Highgate twice to make sure a ramp would be there , not just for me but other disabled racers , I found out the day before the meetings no ramp was available :rant:

I will not be bundled up stairs like a sack of potatoes. Others who can walk but not get up stairs could not go for the same reason :rant:

 

[simpson]

it is their livelyhood.

???

 

[Tony Taylor]

I was disappointed, but not suprised, at the conduct of the two meetings on sunday.

The NNWRF spokesperson did say that the NNWRF committee were looking for a life time ban even though the membership they had already canvassed had indicated a lesser ban was appropiate. Whilst it's perhaps understandable that the committee are angry with their ex committeee members because of the problems they have caused for them it would appear the committee have influenced the vote, and I'm not at all sure the majority of NNWRF members would agree this descision. Using hearsay evidence of previous misdeeds by the Bellwoods without a scrap of proof to give extra weight to the committeees desire for a life time ban only proves justice by kangaroo court.While I think it's totaly reasonable for the Bellwoods to be punished a life ban is excessive IMO. I can't help feel the Bellwoods have been made a scapegoat.

I'm not at all sure the BWRA ban is constitutional. It would be far more appropiate that such a serious punishment be decided by a postal vote. There's no evidence that the AGM was representative of the entire membership but it was obvious given the prevoius NNWRF vote which way any vote ( in which the BWRA chairman spoke against the Bellwoods) would go. It seems odd to me a vote to ban the Bellwoods was allowed yet proposals to ban others were apparently ignored. A sub text for using a ban of the Bellwoods to force a ban for others who have stolen from the NWRF seemed to be going on.

Another unjust lifetime ban in the history of the BWRA. Those involved should be ashamed of themselves especially considering the skeletons some of the more vocal proponents have in their cupboards.

 

[mutley]

majority yes, but we stand together as a committee. we had then put it to members if they had of gone for 1 year or 2 we would of gone along with it, I'm not getting into it on K it was sorted yesterday .. the fed dont usually put it to members votes but had to on this occasion i think what people are talking about is the fact two people are banned from both bodies while the other 2 got of lightly even if its awhile back it still stinks. we are going to carry on as a committee and try to make racing better for everyone lets just try to enjoy whats left of this sport will not say anymore on this matter ever thing yesterday was a members decision and do believe if the bwra had put the other problem to the floor that would also of gone to a ban after all both times have involved members money

 

[rodders]

I was disappointed, but not suprised, at the conduct of the two meetings on sunday.
The NNWRF spokesperson did say that the NNWRF committee were looking for a life time ban even though the membership they had already canvassed had indicated a lesser ban was appropiate. Whilst it's perhaps understandable that the committee are angry with their ex committeee members because of the problems they have caused for them it would appear the committee have influenced the vote, and I'm not at all sure the majority of NNWRF members would agree this descision. Using hearsay evidence of previous misdeeds by the Bellwoods without a scrap of proof to give extra weight to the committeees desire for a life time ban only proves justice by kangaroo court.While I think it's totaly reasonable for the Bellwoods to be punished a life ban is excessive IMO. I can't help feel the Bellwoods have been made a scapegoat.

I'm not at all sure the BWRA ban is constitutional. It would be far more appropiate that such a serious punishment be decided by a postal vote. There's no evidence that the AGM was representative of the entire membership but it was obvious given the prevoius NNWRF vote which way any vote ( in which the BWRA chairman spoke against the Bellwoods) would go. It seems odd to me a vote to ban the Bellwoods was allowed yet proposals to ban others were apparently ignored. A sub text for using a ban of the Bellwoods to force a ban for others who have stolen from the NWRF seemed to be going on.

Another unjust lifetime ban in the history of the BWRA. Those involved should be ashamed of themselves especially considering the skeletons some of the more vocal proponents have in their cupboards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Agree with alot you've said Tony :thumbsup: but do believe members voted with there own minds and not that of the commitee.At least I hope they did Karen

 

[mutley]

tony the fed committee already new the majority of feeling from members as we have asked over the last few weeks. i dont agree with your points regarding the nnwrf we dealt with it as fair as possible .....it had to go to members vote but do agree with your point regarding the other,it is unjust to Bruce and DI considering past events regarding theft of members money not just that the bringing of this sport into such disrepute :rant: but the members decision was that of a life time ban 2 wrongs dont make a wright the other 2 got of lightly but theft is theft

 

[rodders]

I was disappointed, but not suprised, at the conduct of the two meetings on sunday.
The NNWRF spokesperson did say that the NNWRF committee were looking for a life time ban even though the membership they had already canvassed had indicated a lesser ban was appropiate. Whilst it's perhaps understandable that the committee are angry with their ex committeee members because of the problems they have caused for them it would appear the committee have influenced the vote, and I'm not at all sure the majority of NNWRF members would agree this descision. Using hearsay evidence of previous misdeeds by the Bellwoods without a scrap of proof to give extra weight to the committeees desire for a life time ban only proves justice by kangaroo court.While I think it's totaly reasonable for the Bellwoods to be punished a life ban is excessive IMO. I can't help feel the Bellwoods have been made a scapegoat.

I'm not at all sure the BWRA ban is constitutional. It would be far more appropiate that such a serious punishment be decided by a postal vote. There's no evidence that the AGM was representative of the entire membership but it was obvious given the prevoius NNWRF vote which way any vote ( in which the BWRA chairman spoke against the Bellwoods) would go. It seems odd to me a vote to ban the Bellwoods was allowed yet proposals to ban others were apparently ignored. A sub text for using a ban of the Bellwoods to force a ban for others who have stolen from the NWRF seemed to be going on.

Another unjust lifetime ban in the history of the BWRA. Those involved should be ashamed of themselves especially considering the skeletons some of the more vocal proponents have in their cupboards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Agree with alot you've said Tony :thumbsup: but do believe members voted with there own minds and not that of the commitee.At least I hope they did Karen

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

meant to add at the end,'or what was the point of attending the meeting'

 

[simpson]

i think the nnwrf did the right thing in asking the members to decide their punishment

 

[mutley]

we were told to watch what we say in k9 by the chairman yesterday so im keepin shtum now

 

[tanyia]

majority yes, but we stand together as a committee. we had then put it to members if they had of gone for 1 year or 2 we would of gone along with  it, I'm  not getting into it on K it was sorted yesterday .. the fed dont usually put it to members votes but had to on this occasion i think what people are talking about is the fact two people are banned from both bodies while the other 2 got of lightly even if its awhile back it still stinks. we are going to carry on as a committee and try to make racing better for everyone lets just try to enjoy whats left of this sport  will not say anymore on this matter  ever thing yesterday was a members decision and do believe if the bwra had put the other problem to the floor that would also of gone to a ban after all both times have involved members money

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I think this committee [ NNWRF ] to be the best we have had so far.

:thumbsup:

 

[Karen-Coral]

Quote"""" meant to add at the end,'or what was the point of attending the meeting'

Well after the previous few years no point whatsoever as there will be a EGM within the next two or three months called by someone who probably was not even there because something that was decided does not please them--

steve--

 

[simpson]

Quote"""" meant to add at the end,'or what was the point of attending the meeting'
Well after the previous few years no point whatsoever as there will be a EGM within the next two or  three months called by someone who probably was not even there  because something that was decided does not please them--

steve--

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

too true

 

[rob67]

What struck me about yesterday's meetings was the amount of time we talked about 'people' in relation to the time we talked about racing dogs :blink: It seems strange to me, but then they were the first meetings I had attended,perhaps that's the norm? i have to admit, at one stage I thought we were voting to drug test owner's............not the dogs (w00t)

chris