johno

well said bart

funny how you always seem to be right. as you clearly outline you have a limited understanding of accounts. so how is it you felt the need to imply that given your perception of what happened the all was fine? once again you desperately clutch at a source of confirmation for your position on avian flu by referring to Mr.Bryants change of view. Mr.Bryant as far as i am aware is an administaration and management professional with no authority whatsover regarding the dangers or otherwise of avian flu. as to you stealing others peoles work at no point did i make that statement. i suggested that you were attempting by association to create a hyped up profile of your own capabilities and expertise. i stand by this position. you state your sole position is not based on pigeon orientated vets i seem to remember somewhere you were alluding to a personal contact with Dr Chalmers. your style of reporting was such that you seemed to think that contact by email was sufficient to elevate you to the standards that Dr Chalmers has achieved over a long and successful veterenary career through dedication and hard work. you have once again through attempted waffle and thinly disguised spin failed to include any merit in your debate. please if you are going to continue to take a position on certain issues have the decency and good sense to research the facts more rigouously. as to the likes and dislikes of the memebers of this forum you again assume that you know best. the most important part of the accounts is the suditors notes. you allude to hearsay in that you infer that the chartered accountant and police held an investigation. may i ask why it has taken this prodding to get to this information. may i also suggest that if your hearsay is true that very few of the members of the shu are aware of this. if it is not true then you once again have failed to investigate adequately an extremely delicate situaion.

once again bruno you are attempting to hide behind the cloak of the webmaster. i notice you have little to say regarding the content of my previous post. as to giving you credit you should by now have more sense than attempt to make me look incompeteent with your failed atempt at backcovering. i totally disagree with your post in which your clearly attempt to portray a position of smugness re the situation you are referring to. you clearly have taken your usual approach in failing to research and then try to fully comprehend the matter in question. you have answered none of the points raised in my post. the idea that you stand back and let others better informed deal with given situations is not confirmed by your efforts on this forum. you have for some time questioned and ridiculed the opinion of extremely well qualified and vastly experienced government officials over the avian flu issue. you have based your sole position on this issue on some thin and not too extensive research undertaken by pigeon orientated vets. once again you are using someone elses efforts in an attempt to elevate your standing in the pigeon fish bowl in the uk. i am srory i have to go to these lengths of debate to oppose what you are doing but in search for fairness and openess i cannot sit back and let you irresponsibly continue down the path you are going. the delete button is mightier than the keyboard so they say.

bruno far from being repetitive i would suggest that you fail to take account of members being observant. your post number 20 of 32 here you clearly indicate that you have taken the word of one member of the board as against a number of others. you take a position based solely on the perception of one individual. no balanced view no attempt to confirm anything. clearly biased and prejudiced. you then are shallow enough to refer to a unilateral decision taken by you not to savage the posts which are in oposition to your position. you attempt to defend the actions of individuals and organisations who are basically tearing up the rule book. you then hypocritically level accusations of irrelevance and repeptition against other members of the forum. it is only a matter of time before posts will be censored before they are posted on the forum the way you are going in my opinion.

bruno i trust you will allow me to respond to your posts 125 and 140. firstly i take it you saw the 2006 accounts of the shu. did you by any chance pay any attention to the auditors notes. the notes basically state that auditor takes no resposibility for the content. have you noticed also that all prices are now quoted with the addition that vat has to be added. you then allude to the fact that the auditor has passed the accounts. are you aware of the enron situation where a good number of top accountants have been taken to court. some have even committed suicide. you are talking of things you know nothing about. anyone who wants to go through the accounts in a methodical way will see the problems. the fact that no bank statements were audited says it all. what about the vat investigation and tax investigation were these undertaken for fun. what was the result of these investigations were the members informed? is it a coincidence that the administration for the so called pigeon trust has been removed from low waters road. what is the reality of the mysterious investment account. over £30000 in it yet the membership has to be risen by £2. transfers fees up. cash flow problems. none of this stacks up. i trust also bruno that you are aware that you are the one who used the words fraud and illegal transfers in your post 140. i hope all who are reading these posts will pay attention to your reactions here. you opened this subject and felt free to put what you see as your position. this is a direct response to your stated position. i would expect that someone of your standing will not feel the need to press the delete button.

bruno since i was last here you seem to have gained the gift of clairvoyance. you as usual make assumptions and attempt to throw in buzz words in a vain attempt to retrieve your situation. once again you take the position of the know all. how do you know what i or anyone else sounds like. the mere fact that you somehow think you have been generous with your childish self appointed control of the delete is a massive indicator of your failure to grasp the situation. there is no need for anyone in this site to have a dig at the shu. the shu are doing an excellent job at making a foolish laughing stock of themselves in my opinion. no vendetta no grievance just opinion pure and simple. the example being set by the shu is not anything today with me posting or anyone posting. once again you have totally misread a posting. as tom jones may its not unusual.

well done rpra. facing up to reality immediately. this avoids spending fortunes on lawyers. once the rules are finalised the rpra will move on move up. excellent work. a fine example. well done to all involved.

bruno you are not a member of this fed are you. this underhand attack on the fed committee is outrageous. i thought you wrere supposed to be amoderator. there is no consistency at all in stance. you astound me. but this isnly my opinion.

in reply to jimmy whites post their is much more to the scottish members who left the shu than ets. this continued attempt at whitewashing the reasoning behind South lanrkshire, glasgow, forth and clyde, east of scotland etc etc leaving is an extremely poor show. we continue to hear the i only want to flee ma doos cry.what a load of rubbish. the ongoing situation within the shu chased more members away than the ets. poor poor show jimmy white you should know better.

bruno remove this if you like. i am used to it. i fail to see the consistency in your posistion when as a moderator, what a most innappropriate choice of word, you clearly take an aggressive pro shu stance in any debate concerning the same organisation. you appear to be incapable of thinking like a reasonable inmdividual. you habitually come across as a self appointed and opinionated know all. you post web addresses pointing to articles and discussion papers on many subjects. while you may well have located and read some of these same articles your content in your postings give the impression that you have severe difficulty in understanding the content. you regurgitate other peoles work and attemt to lay claim to the implioed understanding that you somehow feel this gives you. in this current discussion you are clearly waitng in the wings to savage the comments that you can not handel. this is not moderation this is poor judgement and shows a complete lack of skill and maturity. i hope you understand that this is only a personal reading of the current situation and accept that this is only fair criticism and not intended to offend. the shu like your self have repeatedly and maliciously refused to operate within their own rules and constitution. the fact that more and more people are becoming aware of this is not the posters to this forums fault. a poor example will eventually lead to a poor response. any organisation experiencing problems should invest in small mirrors for the management committee. this is usually the quickest way of identifying where the problem originated. the mirror is excellent in that it will also identify where the solution to the problem should be located.

pigeon issues in the face of potential catastrophe may not be a prochial issue to you bruno but I will choose to await the findings of the present legislative investigative bodies. Acceptimng reality as soon as is possible tends to help most situations. The pigeon fancy is irrelevant in this debate both at a regional and national level among the legislative organs. It may well be better to keep our heads down and wait and see. No need to cause a stir where there is not one.

"To be fair, I think the previous posts have all been about the need for informed opinion based on facts, rather than opinion based on rumour and speculation." Bruno how do you possibly come to this conclusion. No one had pointed out or mentioned that the Bernard Mathews connection was nigh impossible based on the geographics of the situation. Your comments on a little knowledge being dangerous highlight exactly the point I was trying to make. In reading any article it is important that the reader takes account of the wider aspects of the content. This issue has many spin off affects other than health. The time scales involved on the issues contained in the wider spectrum are also crucial. The simplistic parochial type approach which you are advocating can be dangerous even although undertaken with the best intentions. The implications of an outbreak of H5N1 especially if it mutates are mind blowing. The implications of the current outbreak solely on ecomic terms are also mind blowing. The possible cost of compensation. The possible job losses. The follow on effect on dependant industries like feeding wholesalers, implement and equipment wholesalers, transport companies, we must consider this. In the scheme of things we are but a speck of dust. You start your post with the line "to be fair" I do not see any attempt to be fair to the Bernard Mathews companies who have no one here to speak up for them. As a moderator you have in the past used this ideology to allow you to remove posts. I suggest consistency is not being applied in this case. As you say I am only posting facts as I see them. A personal opinion on an open forum. What it is all about I think.

there are some seriously misleading if not dangerous posts here. the outbreak in hungary was in the far south east of the country. the bernard mathews operation is in the north west. like comparing kent and skye. hard to make a connection. it seems some people are more entitled to hold an opinion than others. i would think the place for the scientific debate was among the scientists. professional experts who have spent years studying and have years of hands on experience. an old saying would ring true i feel. "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing in the hands of the wrong people".

the idea that some people without a mandate from others elevate themselves to dictators is frightening. any post not suitable to their perception of the pigeon game is removed. they have no qualification and no criteria is openly available to the members to enlighten them as to how the status of controller was achieved. there is no room for individual thought or opinion. there is no room for factual information. there is no room for reason and fairness. some ill informed and ill equiped people have taken it on themselves to dictate and control content of the forum. therefore the forum is not open but is an attempt at hoodwinking people into believing thay can freely and honestly post their opinions. these are opinions held by me.

frankdooman i am unable to respond in case i offend anyone. so ratger than waste my time writing i will stop posting and leave the way open for dictatorship and censorship. laughingly there is a thread here asking what is wrong with the pigeon fancy. censorship, dictatorship, etc etc...

points well made Frankdooman. the implication would be that the other organisations would be doubling their prize this year. i doubt this will be so. the other one loft races are dependant on entries from punters. punters who see that the there is a lack of information and communication move on elsewhere. these races attract by example. they operate on the goodwill of the punters. for some this will eventually make their position financially and credibility wise untenable. some are on the brink already i feel. do your homework. believe what your eyes and ears tell you.

time will tell.

maverick i do not have a crystal ball. i am basing my predictions on past performance. 2006 first prize £10000. how can they possibly predict a first prize in 2007 which is double this amount. how many entries are there at this point. how many individuals. howmany groups of three.

well said dougie. are you sending any to the rpra or other one loft set ups. you should not forget i am only posting an opinion. i am not aware of any limitation on how often i can put informative content within my postings. as you rightly point out you want to exercise your freedom of choice. i support this wholeheartedly. in turn i would expect you to allow me the same freedom to post. i again question the method used in how the stated expected first prize was calculated. i question the reasoning behind clearly missing out what 2006 first prize was. i question the debacle that was supposed to be a stall at blackpool. this is me excercising my freedom of choice.

going, to a disaster you must be joking. believe your eyes and ears.

regardless of who wants Mr.B. he is in contravention of the shu rules and is therefore by necessity not eligible for election. in order to stand for election he must ne a delegate. he has not received the nomination from lanarkshire and by rules he has enforced on others he can not be a delegate for west dunbartonshire. this is the crux of this discusion. we have just taken a step forward by throwing out the recent ayrshire appeal. the delegates acted fairly and responsibly. they applied the rules even handedly and in a fair manner. let us do the same here. the current shu president is giving an extremelty poor showing and is setting an extrememly poor example. be open be fair. the same rules for everyone regardless of their shu position.

how can we be in debt. the reserve account has in excess of £30000 in it. what is this for. or does this amount really exist.

henrik the stand was a disaster. all the talk about expected prize money being thousands does not stand up to investigation. if last years first prize was not as expected then would we accept that this years projections were on the mark. the set up is a disgrace to the scottish pigeon fancy llet alone the uk fancy. and the lack of information relating to the income and outgoings of this so called trust is in my opinion frightening. stand up for what is right and fair.

update from blackpool. scottish pigeon trust the promoters of thescottish one loft race stall abysmal attempt at promoting the trust. the stall was a small borrowed table covered with a tartan piece of cloth. on the table was a 1/4 bottle of whisky. was the whisky the first prize or was it a raffle prize. what is this all about. how do these people continue to promote this tragedy the way they do. as i have stated before do your homework. i find it difficult that so called trustees think this is an appropriate way to promote the pigeon sport in scotland. i was shocked when i realised this was the so called stand of a scottish pigeon organisation more worrying was the fact that the stand was being attended by two past presidents of the shu. what an example. i would expect that the entry and the first prize in 2007 will reflect this situation. what a shambles.

news from blackpool. the compound club of which the president of the shu is a member did not receive a resignation from Mr Barlow the current shu president. the lanarkshire fed secretary returned the presidents fees in a vain attempt to cover up the situation. the fees were returned to the fed secretary stating that Mr Barlow had not lodged his resignation with his club so therefore continues to be a member. the current shu president is knowingly and willingly breaking the shu rules. other people have been taken to task on this issue by the same Mr.Barlow. poor show. extremely poor example.