Nnwrf Members Meeting

[Tony Taylor]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

it was the best time to have the meeting as the coming weekend is a championship event we will be far too busy

The meeting might be more convienient as champs week end will be busy but I don't agree it was the best . IMO a vote is best taken when the most members are present. I also don't agree that it would not be possible to organise a vote along the lines I've indicated or that it would take up to much time.

                            I did not canvas the far flung regions as you put it  Dee did I gave out the feed back from the South

remind me when did I canvass the North West  your wrong again

sorry Linda I must have misunderstood. I thought you were taking credit for that. As for the NW it was at Highgate, after Show the World open. I presume those canvassed but not present views were not added to the vote.

                         Di was treasurer Bruce was secretary therfor he also had a responsibility

All the comittee have responsibility. The point is only those signing the checks have stolen unless Bruce forged checks..

3) Was there any agreement with the Bellwoods regarding the return of the money?                                      --------------

  you know there was

I don't know the details though. Perhaps you would like to share them?

Have tried to answer your points Tony however why you need to keep asking the same questions on here when you were at the meeting and had the opportunity to put them to the committee face to face is beyond me
if the committee had dealt with this situation and given a short term ban without consulting the members do you honestly believe it woud have been accepted I think not. Whatever ban was given out affects them both  not only because of their positions on the committee but they were also joint members. It was'nt an easy descision to come to as Bruce and Di were/are friends of committee members outside of NNWRF. They have accepted and expected this outcome from the NNWRF  BUT not the BWRA  descision

Dee has worked very hard over the past few weeks with the bank in order to get as much of the members money back as possible and she should be commended for it the rest of the committee are very

The work the committe, has done is to be applauded and on the whole the situation has been handled quite well. However it could have been better IMO if more members had chance to vote.

2 to 5 yrs wouldn't be a short term ban and I atill think most members would accept that as being fair.

Sorry but I didn.t feel that particular meeting or the one after was the right place to have any sort constructive discussion and nor did I think there was any realistic chance of a considered reply.

As far as this topic is concerned I'm saying no more. I think the decisions by the NNWRF and the BWRA to give out life bans in this instance are bad ones. I don't think it will make the problem go away and I think it will cause resentment.

I rember past occasions when members in power in the national organisations gave out unjustified life bans by using that power in a self serving way. I'd rather hoped with changes at top level things would be different.

 

[weathergirls]

I was not canvassing at that open or any other Iwas sat having a drink and a chat with the N.W. if I was askedany questions I will have answered them thats not canvassing

WE DON'T CONSIDER OURSELVES AS BEING IN POWER AS YOU PUT IT MERELY WORKING BLOODY HARD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MEMBERS AND WHIPPET RACING

maybe you should take time to read through the lines and moderate some of your own posts Tony

 

[rob67]

I think we all have a responsibility to bring about change, not only at the top level but down to the grass roots too. Perhaps that means all members being aware of decisions being considered at the meeting on the 21st had the responsibility of making their feelings known to committee members, not whinge about the decisions after they were made, especially if they were also at the meeting. Anyone on K9 had the opportunity to read the agenda for last sunday, and if there had been so much support for Bruce and Di, where was it?

I would imagine that they have the right to appeal? Let those complaining show their support then.

chris

 

[marielou]

Tony I do think you're being quite unfair. Graham and I were at the meeting as you know and we were in the minority voting for a five year ban ( just so everyone knows where we stand). I think the committee had every right to put their point of view as forcefully as they wanted, after all they are the ones that have had to deal with this mess. Its the committee that had to front up to the members and tell them the bad news and its members of the committee that have spent their free time sorting it out with the bank and having to deal with Di and Bruce.

As far as I remember the biggest part of the excessive anti Di and Bruce stuff came from members not the committee. There was a lot of hostility in the room with a lot of angry people but the committee, Linda in particular did a very good job keeping the meeting orderly and making it possible for anyone who wanted to have a say to do so.

Concerning your point about the members not present not having a vote, I think you are being unrealistic. The fact is the NNWRF is a small organisation run by a band of volunteers who according to the constitution dont have to have a vote by members on anything, we all know this and accept it when we join. However on this issue the committee decided it was best to give members a say. We attended despite Graham just getting over being quite poorly. We went to the meeting because we had heard peoples views and we thought that they were going to be judged harshly and we wanted to vote. We are new to racing and Di helped us when we started and even though we both agree that what they have done is wrong we thought a life ban is too long. This weekend there will be loads of people at Highgate and so I see no problems with those people getting to the meeting last weekend if it was that important to them, it was to us we went we had our say, the vote went against what we wanted, thats life.

I just wish people would remember that the committee are just people, they race their dogs like we do and they give their time up to help make it possible for the rest of us to enjoy the day out. They do it because they want to and thank goodness they do because its that great a job that at every meeting Ive ever attended to elect committee members, no matter what organisation, there is never a huge queue of people wanting to do it. I wonder why?

All the best

Graham and Marie

 

[rodders]

It is no use keep knit(or nit,not sure which :lol: ) picking at the commitee,they quite rightly said they would take into consideration the members opinions over the Bellwood affair.In fact they went one step further and allowed members to vote on the outcome,again quite rightly so :thumbsup:and although normally not a democratic organisation,in this case democracy was applied and the majority vote was carried.I cannot see what else can be expected of the commitee,they have done the job required of them. Karen

 

[mutley]

personally i think DI and Bruce have been given a harsh sentence due to the leniency the last time it went bad :- " not getting onto the you know who subject :angry: but the banning from bwra for life i thought was too much they can appeal and as Linda said they have had there membership declined in definite from the fed. the bwra are not to blame they only did what members asked DI herself expected the feds decision due to the seriousness of the issue but the members votes came as a shock concerning the bwra its laughable how members managed to vote on a life ban from both bodies after past offenders who got of very lightly :rant: the fed dealt with it the only way possible if the committee gave them a ban without members say for lets say 2 year there would of been a major outcry :blink: i for one am going to carry on racing even if its not very enjoyable at the Minuit i wish none of this had happened as DI and Bruce were Friends not just committee those condemning the fed for there dealings with it haven't seen the crap my wife and Linda including myself and the rest of the committee have had to put up with and work tirelessly overall its been shit to put it simple at least we got the money back :rant: any one who would like my job can have it i will gladly sit back and enjoy the racing instead of giving up my time also my dogs wouldn't be suffering like they do whilst trying to help run an open :rant:

 

[john m]

Personally I think Di and Bruce were very hard done by given what has been allowed in the past, but I abide with the majority verdict even if it was not my own.

The trouble with being a committee person is that you are always in the line of fire by people who want to vent frustrations or personal feelings against whatever you stand for. If you believe 100% in what you and your fellow committee do for this sport then unless the majority of members disagree you must be doing a decent job.

You will never please everyone but to be able to listen to member’s views as the N.N.W.R.F. committee has done on this occasion and work for them is not a bad thing at all, something that if done in the past may have made this sport healthier than it has been. Carry on working for the good of all the racing public Gary until the majority say otherwise, if ever they do, all the best to all the workers in this sport.

 

[GRAHAM PEM]

THERES ONE THING CERTAIN IN LIFE YOU WILL NEVER PLEASE EVERYONE IVE BEEN TRYING FOR YEARS BUT MANDY STILL COMPLAINS . :- "

 

[Karen-Coral]

IMHO-
After whats happened- Any self respecting person/people would have banned themselves from the sport and not waited for a meeting to decide the outcome.

 

A simple letter to the Fed/BWRA of their intentions/self ban would have sufficed and stopped a lot of gossip/speculation leading up to this meeting.

 

The committees then would only have had to ok/file it-end of.

Karen B.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

couldnt agree more :thumbsup:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

When it is all done and dusted we will all still have different opinions on how this disgraceful act should have been handled but the Committee have done there best for the( Members ) not others who just want to cause trouble!!!!!!!!

I would like it to go on record that the Committee have my full support in the way this has been sorted and it cant have been easy for any of them --

to have to ban their friends-----

but would a true friend put you in that position where you would have to ???my thoughts are NO THEY WOULD NOT !!!

Many a person has been jailed for less ---and a criminal record to boot

it might seem harsh to some but its not really and could have been much worse ----

steve- not Karen

 

[syko]

Having seen all the comments made about Di and Bruce it makes me wonder how some folk feel Tony you were at the meeting and a vote was taken the committee had our say but being committee people and friends we thought whatever the decion it would be looked on by some members as bias so it was taken to the members were 3 options were voted on the majority was a life ban I can honestly say that I thought it was a bit harsh but had to stand by the vote let me say if it was left to the committee it wouldnt be a life ban but we have to stick to what the members voted on

This is just a part of what the com have top do for those who winge do they know the com are the first to be there to prepare to make it a good meeting are the last to leave also as Gary has said while you are walking and looking after your dogs ours are penalized by being left in the car while we work to make your day easier also do you know how many hours are spent on the phone arranging and organizing events travelling to see venues for your benefit how we travel sometimes miles to attend a meeting to work for you even if we hadnt anything to race t Just to work for you

and all out of own pockets we do not get expences

before you start saying well no one forces you to do it I agree we do it because we want to and still we cant do right by some

May I suggest to those who have a dig at us come on the committee and do your share and put into practise what you breach if not then shut up moaning and let us get on with the work as Graham said we will never please everyone but we will do our best

these are my views nothing to do with the others so dont got having a go at them Linda and Dee have enought thrown at them bless em

we aim to please if we dont well hard luck

 

[Tony Taylor]

Tony I do think you're being quite unfair. Graham and I were at the meeting as you know and we were in the minority voting for a five year ban ( just so everyone knows where we stand)..............All the best

Graham and Marie

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I'm not trying to be unfair and nor am I trying overturn the decision or critise the committee globaly. The questions I have asked are to give me and anyone else who's interested as deep an understanding of the issue as can be reasonably expected

Clearly the committee has the support of it's membership on this issue and of course still has my support and I accept it's decision.

I may be in the minority on this issue but if that minority includes people like yourselves, John Noble, John Meades etc etc who all feel the Bellwoods have been harshly treated and didn't vote for a life ban then I'm happy to be in the minority. Considering the past of some of the hardliners their position on the moral high ground is risible.

Whippet racing has been here before; Rob Patterson, Jan Ambrosini, Steve and Julie Bateson, Mark Petite, Jill Hardy all banned by national bodies which had the support of the "majority" even though none off them had done anything that deserved the punishment they recieved. As Kenny says watch your backs because the knives are out and if you don't deserve the punishment the mob wants to dish out who's going to support you?

As they say , what goes around comes around.

 

[Paws123]

Tony Taylor,Oct 26 2007, 11:50 AM

Whippet racing has been here before; Rob Patterson, Jan Ambrosini, Steve and Julie Bateson, Mark Petite, Jill Hardy all banned by national bodies which had the support of the "majority" even though none off them had done anything that deserved the punishment they recieved. As Kenny says watch your backs because the knives are out and if you don't deserve the punishment the mob wants to dish out who's going to support you?

As they say , what goes around comes around.

Don't see how Rob Patterson, Jan Ambrosini, Steve and Julie Bateson, Mark Petite & Jill Hardy could be classed the same as people /persons in trust of monies

These people supposedly failed drugs tests ...( not going to go into that one, but maybe a good topic again as to what levels are set as i think most of us here are aware of the trouble zero caused )

As for knives i am not a big lover of them always end up with self adhesive sticky plasters on my fingers ...

 

[Tony Taylor]

Don't see how Rob Patterson, Jan Ambrosini, Steve and Julie Bateson, Mark Petite & Jill Hardy could be classed the same as people /persons in trust of monies

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Point being it wasn't the nature of their offence but the unreasonable punishment the majority supported and how anyone who questioned it was treated.

 

[S. Rodgers]

Having seen all the comments made about Di and Bruce it makes me wonder  how some folk feel Tony you were at the meeting and a vote was  taken the committee had our say but being committee people and friends we thought  whatever the decion it would be looked on by some members as bias so it was taken to the members were 3 options were voted on the majority was a life ban I can honestly say that I thought it was a bit harsh but had to stand by the vote let me say if it was left to the committee  it wouldnt be a life ban but we have to stick to  what the members voted on
This is just a part of what the com have top do for those who winge  do they know the com are the first  to be there to prepare to make it a good meeting are the last to leave also as Gary has said  while you are walking and looking after your dogs ours are  penalized  by being left in the car while we work to make your day easier also do you know how many hours are spent on the phone arranging and organizing events travelling to see venues  for your  benefit how we travel sometimes miles to attend a meeting to work for you even if we hadnt anything to race t Just to work for you

and all out of  own pockets we do not get expences

before you start saying well no  one forces you to do it  I agree we do it because we want  to and still we  cant do right by some

May I suggest to those who have a dig at us come on the committee and do your share and put into practise  what you breach if not then shut up moaning and let  us get on with the work  as Graham said we will never please everyone but we will do our best

these are my views nothing to do with the others so dont got having a go at them Linda and Dee have enought  thrown at them  bless em

we aim to please if we dont well hard luck

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Don having read wot u have said, i havent commented on any post on here about this subject but feel i must now, u said if it was up to the committee they would not have had a life ban, but i defintely remember linda saying not once but at leat half a dozen times that they wanted a life ban sue

 

[john m]

I presume that having canvassed as many members as was possible the committee decided to go along the route of what the majority of members wished, and no one can say that it wasn't a large majority. Just goes to show that the committee is in tune to its majority of members feelings.

Unlike some committee's in the past.

 

[weathergirls]

Having seen all the comments made about Di and Bruce it makes me wonder  how some folk feel Tony you were at the meeting and a vote was  taken the committee had our say but being committee people and friends we thought  whatever the decion it would be looked on by some members as bias so it was taken to the members were 3 options were voted on the majority was a life ban I can honestly say that I thought it was a bit harsh but had to stand by the vote let me say if it was left to the committee  it wouldnt be a life ban but we have to stick to  what the members voted on
This is just a part of what the com have top do for those who winge  do they know the com are the first  to be there to prepare to make it a good meeting are the last to leave also as Gary has said  while you are walking and looking after your dogs ours are  penalized  by being left in the car while we work to make your day easier also do you know how many hours are spent on the phone arranging and organizing events travelling to see venues  for your  benefit how we travel sometimes miles to attend a meeting to work for you even if we hadnt anything to race t Just to work for you

and all out of  own pockets we do not get expences

before you start saying well no  one forces you to do it  I agree we do it because we want  to and still we  cant do right by some

May I suggest to those who have a dig at us come on the committee and do your share and put into practise  what you breach if not then shut up moaning and let  us get on with the work  as Graham said we will never please everyone but we will do our best

these are my views nothing to do with the others so dont got having a go at them Linda and Dee have enought  thrown at them  bless em

we aim to please if we dont well hard luck

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Don having read wot u have said, i havent commented on any post on here about this subject but feel i must now, u said if it was up to the committee they would not have had a life ban, but i defintely remember linda saying not once but at leat half a dozen times that they wanted a life ban sue

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

half a dozen times a little extreme but I DID SAY IT TWICE DURING THE MEETING AS A RECCOMENDATION FROM THE COMMITTEE AFTER LENGTHY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COMMITTEE ON WHAT APPROACH WE WERE GOING TO TAKE ALONG WITH RECCOMENDATIONS FROM THE MEMBERS IF NEED BE IT WOULD GO TO A VOTE WHICH WAS EXACTLY WHAT WAS DONE

 

[ahorsnall]

im sorry but cant beleave some posts on here ? saying what goes around comes around you would think that the people at the meeting was the ones taking friends moneys not the treasurer im sorry if you think people that dont ,deserve the same treatment as them that do steal monies .i think some have have forgot who have done wrong .im sorry if i feel it is wrong to steal and if i did do you think it would be unfare to ban for life from going in the same house shop etc .i think not .if you take a position of trust you should be able to be trusted and thats my only opion .chris

 

[syko]

Yes Sue I am sorry I t was my typing I should have said WOULD have been a life ban not wouldnt a typing error my fingers dont work so well now I do opolize if I have misled people at the end of all this the members have made their decision known so should be finished with now

lets go forward not back and get on with racing

 

[Scillonian]

Regardless of whether the Bellwoods have had their memberships withdrawn indefinitely (life ban) the point is they have stolen monies from the Members - without their knowledge or permission - this in the eyes of the law if pure and simple - THEFT/DECEPTION. :rant:

Some members may think the Bellwoods have been treated harshly by the NNWRF taking the actions they have. The members have voted a Committee in post and they have asked the members present at the meeting (from what I have read) what their views were and the votes were then counted and a decision made.

As the old saying goes "If you don't want to do the time don't do the crime"!!!!!

They have nobody to blame except themselves for being so dishonest in taking monies which were not theirs - even though they have have now paid it back.

The members should respect the decisions made by the Committee - afterall sorting out the missing monies could not have been an easy task. Maybe members would have preferred that the Bellwoods were reported directly to the police in order that they take the necessary action - which could have resulted in a custodial sentence!!!!!!!! Joan

 

[john m]

Tony Taylor Quote (Whippet racing has been here before; Rob Patterson, Jan Ambrosini, Steve and Julie Bateson, Mark Petite, Jill Hardy all banned by national bodies) Unquote

Jill Hardy i.e. Gill Hardy has never been banned by any major whippet racing body.