johno

i do not see where you are coming from bruno. if you would like me to post on topics i do not understand or have any interest in i do not have the same needs as yourself in that i do not need to involve myself in every topic. i involve myself in areas where i feel the general pigeon world is not in a position to be aware of what is going on. i attempt to stick to fact and ask questions based on factual events or happenings. if this is uncomfortable for some people then so be it. you attempt to demonise and portray me as some kind of avenging angel when all i do is pose questions. anything that i post that is wrong is quite easily counterbalanced by an opposing view or post based on facts. i see this forum as a place where individuals can ask questions freely and openly no matter how diificult they appear to be. this has been the system in our country for a long time. making people aware of a situation i see as a public duty. not an attempt at disruption. you have puit yourself in a ridiculous position where you involve yourself in a debate and then when things are not going as you wish you pull the plug. you do this based on some ill conceived and contrived logic that you are somehow superior and more qualified to direct or close the topics being discussed by board members. the last time i experienced anything like this was with a football when i was 10 year old. when the owner of the ball was on the loosing side the ball had to go home with him early as he needed to go for his tea. you appear to think you have an all seeing all understanding capability. please take a step back and search deeply for any semblance of humility and modesty that may still reside within your person. you seem to have reached a stage where their is no sustenance to any point you attempt to make. i will put too you that in all walks of life anyone who is involved in the day to day affairs of any organisation has no place in situation where a grievance arises. e.g appeal committe pigeon sport. you seem to think you are above this well tested system. i do not understand why.

bit rich fifer. what about dumbarton john`s position? pot and kettle spring ro mind.

news just in three mile inclusion zone put in place. includes dumbarton and gartcosh.

once again bruno you are right i am thick. you are a genius. a genius in control of the delete button though.

bruno i cannot speak for frank but what would you expect from inferior poorly educated people. i must be thick you told me i was. the thing i do not understand is that not so long ago you asked me on this forum to provide you with an answwer to a question frank put to you. you could not understand it. this does not seem to add up. i do understand you are in control of the delete button. now there is an equitable and fair situation. when are you going to pull the plug. the way the thread is going it will not be long as you are doing an excellent job of highlighting your own unquestionable qualities capabilities. the delete button is mightier than the keyboard.

it would appear that there has been a severe case of foot in mouth identified in Low waters road hamilton. the out break was identified suddenly after a meeting in gretna between the famous shu and the cumbria region of the rpra. immediate consequences are such that it is believed a number of officials have suffered from the effects of shooting themselves in the foot. as a result of the outbreak the representatives of the low waters road establishment have been confined to south lanarkshire for the foreseeable future.

could we not get back to the point. no change as a result of the meeting. is the human rights act not part and parcel of the whole legal set up? are we not a democracy? have we not all the power of choice? some people have excercised their choice and that is their right. if as is implied in a previous post one of the organisations is on the verge of bankruptcy then that organisation should i suggest take serious remedial measures. it may have to down size as they say to survive. it would also be the case that if an organisation was actively pursuing a questionable membership policy based on a political or national connection then the race equality laws may be broken. i personally feel to imply that an organisation with restricted membership policies is likened to an right wing extremist political party somewhat over the top.

the rather pointless meeting that you refer to 48rtc was requested by the shu. the rpra have never approached the shu for a meeting. the outcome of the meeting would not appear to have been the required result for the shu so we now witness the usual reaction when this happens. as far as limiting the rights or choices of their membership the shu would appear to have restricted their own choices by their ill prepared and ill conceived policies in the past. if they take your suggested action i think they will only achieve the same result. at no point did the cumbria delegation suggest that the shu should change their rules to deal with suspensions. it was however asked if the present rules had been applied in a consistent and uniform manner at all times. it was pointed out also that during the frenzy of suspensions a certain individual whose name was brought up by the shu delegation had to have a suspension lifted two weeks after it had been impossed due to the lack of following correct procedure. as to recognition i am unaware of any statement made by the cumbria region representatives which indicated that cumbria did not recognise the shu. it was clearly pointed out that the rules of the rpra would be the only rules used when conducting rpra business. it was also clearly stated that the rpra had no right to dabble in shu business. indeed nor did they wish too.

concrete posting. number at meeting 17 true. 9 shu 8 rpra true. changes due to meeting none. we do not need a report in the bhw to let us know this. questions arising from the meeting. have the shu improved their position re their problems? answer. no. alleged quote from shu president in the car park after the meeting. "we came out of that a lot worse than we went in" future arrangements. none. future plans to meet again. none. is this concrete enough?

how dare you have an informed opinion me. maybe if you changed your name to bah you would be much more easily accepted. now there is no need for you to be sheepish with a reply.

shu business is shu business. rpra business is rpra business. rpra have no responsibility to shu members. and vice versa. clearly both have their own set of rules. shu need to take on board their own problems.

i think no change means it is sorted out as far as i can see. i do not think the rpra has ever had a problem. reports on the meeting yesterday indicate that the only so called problems on the table were distinctly identified as belonging to the shu. the current situation in rosyth would appear to be of major concern to the shu and the fed involved. the high per centage of fanciers leaving fife fed was also a major worry for shu and fife clearly shu issues. the heavy drop in memebership appears to be being taken on as people have now realised the financial implications to fed shu and other organisations involved. nothing much else discussed.

17 at meeting. 9 shu barlow, garven, gibson, creelie, brooks, noble jarvis 2, plus one other. 8 rpra. blacklock, geddes shaw, martin, nelson and 3 other. no change.

the point of the post is to highlight just how serious things can become. a good few are throwing in snippets as to what they have been told. all of these are way off the mark. the full situation is complicated and impossible to condense in a manner suitable for a quick overview. there was no club debt. dues were offered and refused. based on a resignation letter to the fed over a race controllers position. the club took the position the davidsons had resigned from the club. no letter of resignation was ever produced. shu refused individual membership. money was sent on six occassions. no reason given. shu refused to discuss the matter with the davidsons. the davidsons could not appeal as they were never suspended. they decided to seek the advice of a lawyer. is anyone willing to ask and investigate. if we consider the situation should we not ask ourselves if the end result is acceptable or is further investigation not reasonable given the end result. should we all stand back and think we only want to flee our doos or should we attempt to make sure that this never happens again regardless of the rights and wrongs.

the club was not sued. the davidsons were trying to keep their membership. they never resigned. bruno you are off again. this situation is horrendous regardless of how it is portrayed. in the original post i mention the words part due. in any walk in life we all must take resposibility. would it not be possible to set up an independant body to look at these situations. something which may help to avoid these situations. i take great offence at your posturing and attempt at vilification in posting the question "what did you do to help the davidsons". as if you were some sort of paragon of right and wrong. your manner is may i suggest patronising and demeaning. i have supported the davidsons by listening and attempting to make the pigeon fancy aware of their situation. i am attempting to get them a fair hearing. i thought that this open forum was the place to make more people aware of the situation. it may well be that independant judges would find against the davidsons. all i am asking is give them a fair chance. where would many of the so called rebels who have wrongly judged be if someone had not stood along with them to highlight the injustice. what is there to be frightened of?

homer you are not as well informed as anyone with any principles would need to be to comment. your posts are wrong and highlight exactly the points i was attempting to make in the original post. anyone wanting to know anymore should ask questions. enquire with an open mind. do not accept what one side or other says. get all the information. get the paperwork and then decide. faillure to do this is causing the problems. pigeonscout many people believed what you believed about the house. they were wrong it has gone. along with life policies and everything else. i would pose one other question to homer. if the matter was as straght forward as your post would have us belive why has it taken 8 or 9 years to arrive at the point it is now. even the more dense of us would see that there was something seriously complicated in the matter. regardless of what the whole story is you would still have us believe it is their own fault. thirty five years building a family home and then gone over a miniscule pigeon issue. at a time when they should be enjoying their family and grand children the davidsons are having to attempt to start all over again. our beloved sport. we all have to share the blame at least.

it is interesting to see how most of the politics has been classified as vengeful spiteful hateful. the reality of racing pigeons in scotland is. Mr and Mrs Stevie Davidson of Kilwinning have lost their house to pay a lawyers bill which was in part due to the actions of the ruling organisation failing to act responsibly. the equivalent to a warrant sale was performed in June of last year. this was for a bill of £17000 for a layer acting on behalf of Kilwinning pigeon club. the ironic thing about this situation was that Mr and Mrs Davidson had no legal representation. i am not aware of anyone else mentioning this on the forum. i have serious doubts as to whether the post will be left alone as it hits too near the bone for most. i see many posts about raising funds for so called good causes. this makes me squirm when i see the stance being taken by the scottish pigeon fancy. i wonder if people were in the same position would they be talking about nice poems and the love of the sport. the continued attempt to brush over this situation by attempting to label some posters al mal intentioned is sickening. another situation where ridiculous suspensions have bee given out is completely ignored. any reference to these issues is quickly attacked and pushed to the side. the recent actions of seemingly top officials has been ignored and indeed in some posts used to ridicule anyone with a sense of decency and fairness. this will be my last post on any issue on this forum. if you are all happy to go on with the witch hunting and acceptance of situations which are blatantly wrong and repugnant then so be it. it only takes decent people to stand back and say nothing to allow wrong doing to take over. HAD ENOUGH. i am sure that Mr and Mrs Davidson have but unfortunately they will have to keep fighting in an attempt to survive.

bruno you have used tammy as an out. you have shown yourself for what you are. you are involving yourself on topics where the more moderate would leave well alone. the termonology you have used is unbecoming in one who is supposed to lead by example. poison dwarf is an extrememly offensive way of referring to anyone. if you had any dignity or honour you would resign your right to moderate as you heve clearly and repeatedly shown that you are not fit for purpose. you have used tammy as a way of escaping your misdemeanours and obsessive ravings. you have used the role of moderator to escape from a situation you created your self. you feel you are answerable to no one but that everyone is answerable to you. it is time for you to go. you have over the last few days shown that you are neither truthful nor unbiased. resign and do your self a favour. you have clearly lost your way in my opinion. the facts show that you have lost every debate you have been involved in. your reaction to this has been to close the thread down under the cover of tammy. poor poor show.

i have the decency common sense and principle not to attempt to second guess what people mean. even more so when their question is not directed at me. the implication of your post no 123 inferring that i do not know the answer either is that you do not know. this i suggest indicates that frank has managed what many have failed to do. left you incapable of providing a response. i am sure if you take the time and refer to the dictionary often enough you will eventually grasp the meaning of the content of franks post you are referring to.

unlike yourself bruno i attempt to answer questions i have been asked. if i can do this i feel that i tend not to expose my limitations to others who would have us believe they have a superior intelect. as you have in another post stated that you have in your opinion a better understanding of the english language than i posess i fail to understand why you would trust me to decipher franks question on your behalf.

moderate seems to have gone out the window. any opinion will be analysed as wrong. it is a pity other people exist in your world bruno. you seem to have lost all sense of right and wrong. you appear to be over reacting and obsessing. once again you admit you do not have enough knowledge to pass a substatiated opinion. this however is all thrown to the wind when your obsessive need to be an authority takes over. you are only highlighting the frailty of your position.

genius along with modesty is often hard to disguise. you would however appear to be managing to do so exceptionally well. in perssonal attacks i would say you have manged to sink to new depths for who thinks so highly of themselves. a moderator. i will let others opine.

thieves and stolen no moderator post on allegation. you are now an interpretor for the dictionary. the dictionary definitions do not include the two words. you would now have us believe you have more authority on the english language than the experts who make up the dictionaries. you should contact bbc2 they have a programme on this. you loose hands down bruno. face up to reality you have been biased and prejudice right from the word go. it would look like your ego is running out of control. you should remember you have the control of the delete button. i do.

the figures apeear to speak for themselves. i fail to see why you are asking questions when you seem to have all the answers already. why not just cut out the middle man.

like most people i am not an all knowing fountain of knowledge. then again i am not a person who claims to be able to predict what other people mean to say.