Transfer Of Dogs

[tanyia]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

Gaz Im sure thats why we didnt get our card back from the old fed. We joined at Worc just before thay resigned and lisa is still registerd on our card, so we could have raced her. :huggles:

 

[Paws123]

I reckon your probably right there Pauline :- "

 

[tanyia]

never mind its history now. :thumbsup:

 

[spellbound]

QUOTE (At the Tyrone the committee discussed this, 2 committee members felt that because the ban on the two said people was not connected with a drug issue it would be unreasonable to ban the dogs too.) UNQUOTE
So according to this statement, anything other than a drug ban issue, banned people can have their dogs raced for them by another member as long as he or she registers them in his or her name.

In my opinion a ban is a ban to stop people from racing their dogs whatever the nature or cause of the ban.

This ruling allows every member if they wish to flaunt a ban other than a drug issue ban, and in my opinion that is not acceptable, because of the implications to future cases.

If this is not so and other cases are to be dealt with differently then a just claim of favouritism could be sought.

It is my opinion that the committee is making a rod for its back.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

untill going over some old topic on k9 i had decided to treat some of the post's on this topic with the contemt they are worthy of, but have now decided i will answer some points,because of the criticism toward the new bwra committee,

first john m,

a precedent for future cases had already been set by the last bwra committee when Mark Pettitt got a life time ban ( for bringing the sport into disrepute ) he and jill hardy then had a joint membership with all there dogs on one card, according to you this would mean that jill and all their dogs would also be under a lifetime ban, but the old bwra committee allowed jill a single membership and transferred all the dogs so she could continue to race them and they did this without any meeting taking place and i remember at the time you never said anything about that, so rules are only rules when you want them to be,

 

[kipper fluke]

Its no good you just answering the points that suit you,its high time you gave back all what does not belong to you ,also where is the members money traps and equipment>? try answering these questions /points whilst your on with it.

steve

PS you chose to keep this going .

 

[Karen-Coral]

Do you know-as far as I'm aware no-one tackled you at the championships about running your dogs when they could easily have done so-I believed folk had taken the notion to live and let live-sleeping dogs lie etc- but now YOU CHOOSE to bring the whole unsavoury episode to light again!

I don't understand this at all-

Even your signature-which reads-Revenge is Alway/s Sweet could be deemed as confrontational

Why?

Karen Boyd

 

[john m]

Quote (a precedent for future cases had already been set by the last bwra committee when Mark Pettitt got a life time ban ( for bringing the sport into disrepute ) Unquote

So if as you say, a precedent had been set for bringing the sport into disrepute, why were you allowed to join the B.W.R.A. against this precedent. Why did you not receive a lifetime ban for the same offence. You have made the statement that agrees with what I have said

QUOTE(This ruling allows every member if they wish to flaunt a ban other than a drug issue ban, and in my opinion that is not acceptable, because of the implications to future cases.

If this is not so and other cases are to be dealt with differently then a just claim of favouritism could be sought.

It is my opinion that the committee is making a rod for its back.) UNQUOTE

Only Mark Pettitt was charged with bringing the sport into disrepute, in your case both of you were. You of course try to bring other equations and people into the subject to cause trouble and hide the facts of your own misdoings.

Just like when you closed down the old N.W.R.F. so that racers could not run with them.

Just like your refusal to show proper balance sheets.

Just like keeping equipment paid for by membership money.

Most people can see how transparent you really are and what you are, if not you would have had the old N.W.R.F. certified balance sheets for all to see.

What I also suggest is that you look up the meaning of Precedent and then you may just be able to see and be thankful that this committee did not use Mr Pettitt’s ruling on yourselves as a precedent, because had I had been in a position to have done so, I would have.

 

[spellbound]

ALL I CAN SAY IS DONT GET A BAN FOR DRINK DRIVING COS IF SOME OF THESE PEOPLE HAD THERE WAY YOU WOULD NOT BE ALOUD TO SELL OR GET RID OF YOU CARAND IF YOUR A PASSENGER IN YOUR OLD CAR THEN YOU WILL HAVE TO GO STRAIT TO JAIL DO NOT PASS GO DONT COLLECT 200

HAPPY NEW YEAR

LOL[GARY :rant:   :huggles:  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I think they were banned for bringing the sport into disrepute not for the drug issue. The majority of members wanted them banned in a large part for their actions as NWRF committee members were the club equipment is no longer available for members use. Personaly I would consider that theft and if you were a passenger in a stolen car you probably would go to jail.

I think that the misappropiation of NWRF equipment is to blame for the bad feeling towards Yvonne and Tony and not the internet. Blaming the internet is just shooting the messenger and seems to be a cop out for those who would rather keep their actions secret. It's not really suprising that Yvonne and Tony would rather keep their actions secret, but that's the great thing about the internet you can't keep your past misdeeds hidden forever.

What I don't understand is why your friend Steve Williams has done so much to favour them. To my mind he did his best to sabotage the BWRA reps meeting at Fed champs.

Tony

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

you should know most members didn't want us banned your region was one that voted that we should not get banned and you and your wife as rep's had to vote at the bwra meeting you refer to, that we should not recieve a ban, you would find it hard to understand anyone favouring us, it wouldn,t enter your mind because of your bias prejudice view of us, that someone would think we had been treated unfair, i was at that bwra meeting at the new nwrf champs and if you thought steve williams did his best to sabotage the meeting, why did you not say so at the time in the meeting where he could defend himself, or like most,you can only call people from behind your p.c

 

[spellbound]

Do you know-as far as I'm aware no-one tackled you at the championships about running your dogs when they could easily have done so-I believed folk had taken the notion to live and let live-sleeping dogs lie etc- but now YOU CHOOSE to bring the whole unsavoury episode to light again!I don't understand this at all-

Even your signature-which reads-Revenge is Alway/s Sweet could be deemed as confrontational

Why?

Karen Boyd

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

NO your right know one did as you put it TACKLE us for running our dogs, your dog being in the same race, you are well awear that WE DIDN'T run our dogs, Gary ran Rch Bound Too and Shelly ran Hellbound

so when did folk take the notion to live and let live, ????????????? :cheers:

if you read the post again i said why i answered ( because of the criticism of the bwra committee )

 

[butch]

:x just go to bed women

 

[michelle]

you should know most members didn't want us banned your region was one that voted that we should not get banned and you and your wife as rep's had to vote at the bwra meeting you refer to, that we should not recieve a ban, you would find it hard to understand anyone favouring us, it wouldn,t enter your mind because of your bias prejudice view of us, that someone would think we had been treated unfair, i was at that bwra meeting at the new nwrf champs and if you thought steve williams did his best to sabotage the meeting, why did you not say so at the time in the meeting where he could defend himself, or like most,you can only call people from behind your p.c

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

IIRC the members of the BWRA did have a majority for your ban.

Our regions membere did vote for the ban.

I am not and never have been married.

I have no prejudice or bias against you other than held against those that lie, cheat and steal.

I did not say anything at the meeting at which I thought Steve Williams did his best to sabotage because the chairman did a good job of keeping the meeting under control and due process was served. I was not chairman of this meeting and it was not my place to control or admonish Steve Williams; Paul jennings was effective at this.

I have made no charges against Steve Williams that need defending but have expressed my opinion. An opinion that is not unique.

Tony

 

[kipper fluke]

Choosing which comments you wish to respond to again? what about the money the traps and all the other equipment [/b]that dont belong to you ?

 

try to answer that !

 

[Karen-Coral]

No-I am not well aware of who/whom raced your dogs-as I was too busy getting my own legitimate dog ready and I don't go over to the traps myself-as for other people running them for you??????You have named Shelley and Gary-well all I can say to that is YOU were there with YOUR dogs-WHO put your Kickboards in? and as politicians call it-isn't this just plain FUDGING?

Once again may I remind you of who brought this topic up to the surface once more?

and for what reason?

Isn't Teresa Skinner the spokesperson for the BWRA(Press Officer) ?

I also thought that Easter was a time for new beginnings.....................

Karen Boyd

 

[spellbound]

:- " i suppose this is all down to opinion then, i wouldn,t know who put the kickboard in the trap i didn,t go over to the traps, ???but i will say if i,am running a dog and someone put my kickbaord in the trap i wouldn't say they ran the dog, like i say its all down to opinion,

the spokes--person/person's for the bwra are the members the bwra is a members run organization,

all the dogs that ran at the bwra champs were legitimate

it seems it is opinion ( easter a time for new beginnings ) in my opinion its to commemorat the resurrection, we will have to see who's right,???

 

[spellbound]

ALL I CAN SAY IS DONT GET A BAN FOR DRINK DRIVING COS IF SOME OF THESE PEOPLE HAD THERE WAY YOU WOULD NOT BE ALOUD TO SELL OR GET RID OF YOU CARAND IF YOUR A PASSENGER IN YOUR OLD CAR THEN YOU WILL HAVE TO GO STRAIT TO JAIL DO NOT PASS GO DONT COLLECT 200

HAPPY NEW YEAR

LOL[GARY :rant:   :huggles:  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I think they were banned for bringing the sport into disrepute not for the drug issue. The majority of members wanted them banned in a large part for their actions as NWRF committee members were the club equipment is no longer available for members use. Personaly I would consider that theft and if you were a passenger in a stolen car you probably would go to jail.

I think that the misappropiation of NWRF equipment is to blame for the bad

feeling towards Yvonne and Tony and not the internet. Blaming the internet is just shooting the messenger and seems to be a cop out for those who would rather keep their actions secret. It's not really suprising that Yvonne and Tony would rather keep their actions secret, but that's the great thing about the internet you can't keep your past misdeeds hidden forever.

What I don't understand is why your friend Steve Williams has done so much to favour them. To my mind he did his best to sabotage the BWRA reps meeting at Fed champs.

Tony

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

lets try this again, in this post you state that the majority of members wanted us banned, the majority of members didn,t send the votes back, so the majority of members didn,t want us banned, so your post is untrue,

some of your members may have sent back the postal vote in favour of a ban, the reps meeting you are refering to hold at the new nwrf champs, your reg's vote went in favour of us not getting a ban, and thats the way you as rep's had to vote at that meeting,

in my opinion michelle the other rep at that meeting is your wife,

so do you consider that you lied in answering my post or made a deliberate false statement

having made a statement about steve williams and i would think you took that opinion back to your members, (that he tried to sabotage the meeting) as rep's at that meeting you should report on fact not opinion, you were there to represent your members and if you thought a member of the committee was acting to sabotage the meeting then it was up to you to say so in the meeting, that way members don't get opinion from their reps, they get facts

 

[spellbound]

my last post on this topic, if you all like to stick by the rules so much, why did you all send back your postal votes to ban us, the rules say 50 signature's call for a E.G.M not a postal vote, a rule all of you didn't mind breaking,

 

[kipper fluke]

:- " let me try again-

what happened to the members money???? what happened to the traps???? where is the members equipment????? WHERE ARE THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS??????

I am Sure that the BWRA committee can answer their own questions without any help from the likes of you-----?

 

[johnnoble]

spellbound dont kid yourself , you have more enemies than friends .

You are lucky to be still racing after the way you have acted, Ill say once again you are a pair of lieing , cheating , thieving rogues.

You are lucky to have any friends at all.

What happened to the money, did it go towards your holidays, new kitchen etc. or did it just disappear into thin air.

 

[mutley]

dont lett em wind you up john ,no one bothers them at the track yet they insist on coming on K 9 causing trouble -_- not worth a toss :clown: this is a reply to my Friend john ,not you two so dont bother with a reply unless you want to answer Mr Boyd's question but i doubt it....

 

[mutley]

Its no good you just answering the points that suit you,its high  time you gave back all what does not belong to you ,also where is the members money traps and equipment>? try answering these questions /points whilst your on with it.steve

PS you chose to keep this going .

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Steve is no good you asking these questions to these 2 as we know fine well that they are liars, there statements are not worth a light you only have to look at there past record to be fully aware of the s**T they come out with.

This was posted on here on 16/1.04
TO APPLY RULE 10 OF THE N.W.R.F.GENERAL

RULES.

(IN THE EVENT OF THE FEDERATION CEASING

TO OPERATE ALL MONEY HELD BY THE FEDERATION

SHALL BE RE-DISTRIBUTED AMONGST CURRENT

MEMBERS).

N.W.R.F.CEASED TO OPERATE 16/1/04.

A letter has been sent into Whippet News

with details of membership pay out.

TONY WEATHERSON (SECRETARY/TREASURER).

this is a extract of a letter some 4 months later that was in the whippet news

ALL NWRF EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN PLACED IN STORAGE, THE EQUIPMENT OWNED BY THE FED DOES NOT BELONG TO THE MEMBERS THIS EQUIPMENT HAS BEEN DONATED BY FORMER AND PRESENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS ANDFROMSPONSERSHIP MONEY GIVEN TO THE ORGANIZATION.

TOP FIVE PRESENTAION

JACKETS, HAVE BEEN PAYED FOR £175

OUT OF LAST YEARS MEMBERSHIP MONEY

AND WILL BE PASTED ON TO THE WINNERS

AS AND WHEN I SEE THEM AT THE OPENS,

AS FOR THE REST OF THE MONEY LEFT IN

THE NWRF ACCOUNT, THAT IS WHERE IT WILL

REMAIN FOR THE TIME BEING, IT CAN'NT BE

TOUCHED AS IT REQUIRES TWO SIGNATURES (BEFORE THE RUMOURS START AGAIN ) THE OTHER SIGNATURES BEING LYN WALDRON.

TONY WEATHERSON

and on Jul 10 2004, 05:15 PM page 33

this post appeared,

for sale nwrf equipment i.e photo finish//video camera//traps, all

offers considered any club interested

contact Tony Weatherson

statement by Mr Weatherson

so spellbound or rowland did you manage to sell any of the equipment and how much for as i am sure members would like to know, how much they will be receiving from you, you did state on the 16/1.04 that

ALL MONEY HELD BY THE FEDERATION SHALL BE RE-DISTRIBUTED AMONGST CURRENT

MEMBERS

Dee