johno

the mere fact that anyone is suggesting what is in effect a restriction of membership choice highlights a major problem. why is the continual theme of ban suspend restrict so widespread? what is behind this attitude?

ill have to look for a try one get one free

at no point did i refer to fraud. i only reported a report in the bhw. seems strange the reaction this has caused.

8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)

and death will come like a thief in the night

as bruno has decided to close down all debate on the not for profit topic. i will have no other option than to contact tessa.jowell@culture.gsi.gov.uk to make sure i get an authoritative answer. i am sure this will benefit all involved and clear up brunos fear of allegations of fraud. remember bruno old chap you are the one who mentioned fraud it is here for all to see. sleep well. never fera i will return.

you can only mak a point if you are given a chance. bruno is determined to take that opportunity away from anyone who does not fall into line.

alf the threads have been started because bruno closes each one that does not suit down. i have only posted what is contained in joe murphys report in the bhw. i have only used the guidelines of awards for all. do you think it is wrong to post what mr murphy had printed in the book?

in what way alf. what is over the top?

bruno as you continue to close posts would you kindly explain to me what a not for profit organisation is. i believed it was straight forward not for profit. i am sure tessa jowell or her representatives will be able to tell me. it will become clear when under the freedom of information act i get a look at the original application including bank statements etc submitted to verify the accounts.

bruno you have arrogantly closed apost claiming that tha content was basically alleging fraud and that the site may be held legally responsible. if members would like to look at page 38 bhw 23 march 2007 shu report joe murphy they will see what i have written is replicated from mr murphys report. i refer to guidline of awards for all and again if anyone wants to look go to the web site. where is the allegation of fraud. you are the only one who is mentioning fraud. are you insinuating that the contents of mr murphys report or even better the content of the awards for all guidelines are fraudulent?

anyone needing legal advice should contact bruno. he closed a post down awards for all free for all on the grounds that what i posted was alleging fraud. i posted the content of a report fron joe murphy page 38 bhw 23 march 2007 along with a brief outline of the guidleine for applications from the awards from all web site. will the shu ber suing awards for all or joe murphy i am only re writng what they have written.

i notice from the shu report bhw 23 march 2007 that linda brooks applied and was granted 4000 from awards for all. the money is to publish a centenary book which will be sold at a profit. these are facts taken from the shu official report and produced by the shu official pro. this is clearly an shu application. as i have taken the opportunity to have a look at awards for all guidelines i am extremely concerned that the rules laid down have been ignored. in order to apply for a grant a few conditions have to be met. a)an individual cannot apply no organisation with a turnover of more than 20000 annually will receive an award or can qualify for an award. the shu turnover is always in excess of 20000. the last three years average is around 80000. the shu charges five times what it pays for rings. this is done to make a profit to pay wages etc. the shu makes profit from selling ties rubber rings books seals stationery etc etc. so is certainly a profit making organisation. any awards granted by awards for all have to be used to support members free of charge. so i take it the book will be sold at a price which will bring in the 3000. this would mean the subsidy of 4000 would go to the mebers. this would also mean that the book could only be sold to shu members. as can easily be seen there are a number of complicated issues here. i am sure if tessa jowell ( tessa.jowell@culture.gsi.gov.uk) the minister for sport and culture and media was aware of this situation then serious damage could be done to fuiture applications from pigeon organisations. treating these awards as a free for all is highly dangerous and extremely ireesposible.

would it not be better just to bar certain people making posts? this would leave the moderators more free time to get on with important things. i think we should do this.

after all the hulabaloo over what the shu were going to achieve when they met with cumbria the current position is this. membership leaving in a constant drip. members now realise that all the bluster and threat of suspension and other action is all only worhless talk. the financial position of any organisation loosing income from loss of members eventually causes serious repercusions within the organisation. shu now seen as as a toothless dog by all and sundry. no power no consistency no chance. severe cash flow problems are now in place. one loft race failing badly due to lack of entries. fife fed on the brink of extinction. rosyth are only a micro view of what is happening elsewhere. the gretna meeting has certainly cleared up a good number of issues. it looks as if the operation was a complete succes but unfortunately the patient is still dying.

everywhere even in dumbarton?

put on your gartcosh disguise me. you can then be a member of dumbarton. no doos or loft required just a good imagination and a lot of puppets letting you do as you please. bit like school. we were asked where is god. the answer was god is everywhere. they should have also asked is there any body with him.

"be open and resposible, fair and balanced in the way we do things" "annual income of less than 20,000" "we encourage activities which are open to everyone who wants to join in" these are all taken from the awards for all guidlines. how can an organisation with a turnover of around 80,000, operating a restricted membership policy, selling ties books anything in an attempt to make a profit be awarded a lottery grant. a 4000 pound grant to produce a book to sell at a profit. it appears something not quite right here given all these facts.

these awards could end up being an achilles heel for some organisations. public funds are accountable to the public.

facts are facts. if an organisation is being made a laughing stock by its own officials why should people stand back and say nothing. your own post about hitting back becaiuse your own organisation is in a pitiful mess fifer is one of the most outrageous standpoints i have ever experienced. for someone who claims to be at the forefront of pigeon racing in scotland you do not portray your undoubted experience. unfortunately longevity is no guarantee of wisdom.

baird white and barlow, barlow baird and white, white barlow and baird, barlow whiteand baird. members four clubs total membership by the paul daniels method twelve (12). real members three (3) this is an outstanding example being set by the PRESIDENT OF THE SHU. certainly not arithmetic r us.

it is a rule ratified by the shu. lanark have applied the rule. the midland have the same rule and used it to remove scott gibson from the midland. it is a homing union rule and was broken or pushed to the side to allow jb to survive. does not say a lot for your fed when a new member who has no pigeons or loft based in your boundaries becomes your shu delegate. more like puppets are us.

how can anyone possibly attempt to use references to rule breaking in putting forward a defence of the shu. what about the rule book when the current president never resigned from his lanarkshire membership and joined dumbarton. lanarkshire have a one fed rule which has in the past been enforced by the shu. what about the manipulating the membership numbers of dumbarton to allow the set up of a federation to allow jb to be a delegate to the shu? come on folks at least try and give the impression you are trying to be consistent and fair minded.

there appears to be a lack of information from low water. could this be likened to the silence of the lambs?

in the event that two organisations agree to accept one and others decisions on suspensions etc what would the legal position be? if one organisation got it seriously wrtong would the other be held accountable also? would the organisations be jointly liable for the consequences? would a new appeal process need to be set up. how would it be possible for one organisation to enforce a suspension without offering the right to appeal? in the event that one organisation run out of funds would the other be held responsible for costs? serious issues here i think.