johno

the members will decide. that is the way it should be. the members should also have all the facts at hand. throughout all these posts there has been no denial that the current shu president is involved in creating a position for himself. he has and will continue to use any means to hold on to the presidents job. the past actions of the same person in trying to put another ex president in place when he, the ex president was disqualified by the rules is a clear indicator that he, the current shu president is capable of undertaking actions which are not in keeping with the position he holds. poor show. very poor show.

he has joined another fed where he is delegate in a last ditch attempt to hold what he sees as power. he is well outside this feds boundarieas and will not fly pigeons. this is the example being set by the current shu president. poor extremely poor.

no rose you can not appeal against shu decision. i light at the end of the tunnel is that more and more people are aware that the situation is doing no one no favours. the presidents post is up for reelection. so to are the senior posts within the shu. failure to change could well leave us with an never ending debate on what is happening. fifer you are 100 per cent correct in my eyes. apply the rules fairly and squarely accross the board. bruno a lot of sense in what you are saying. why is it that the powers that be refuse to listen. what is the problem with openess fairness and equity to all members. the shu is a members organisation. why do officials feel the need to over ride the membership. the way in which the current president is attempting to manouevre himself back into power says a lot for the way officials see things.

you have it one wings. the faces do not fit so the shu are hearing the appeal. if they hear it the implication is they will find for the objector. the appeal is at least 6 months late.

unfortuanately rose this is the situation. over the last good number of years any issue that has been put in front of them involving a committee member has been found in favour of the committee member. coincidence.

that is exactly the point rose. in the past the shu have refused appeals that were one day late. they have also refused appeals on numerous occassions for no consistant reason. some are allowed the appeal others in similar circumstances are refused. depends on who you are. the rules are not used with any consistancy and not applied evenly and fairly.

current case at ahu appeals. two people apply to join club after agm has taken place. secretary rings round all members and asks if it is ok to discuss at next meeting to pay dues. members agreed to secretaries suggestion. two members allowed to join. 4 months after season finished one member complains and lodges appeal to shu on grounds that meeting was not a properly constituted meeting. shu agree to hear appeal. we all know of appeals that were refused time barred and not with a four month gap. this case is in ayrshire. we must ask the question why do the rules appear to be implemented in different ways for different people. i bet we will find that the shu find in favour of side that the shu delegate stands. spooky. poor show poor example.

stick to your guns fifer

hiding proposals under the A.O.B has become a common trend. it is devious and dangerous. i am neither for or against what the proposals were. i am totally against the way it has been done. we ask on this forum whu we cannot get people to join the fancy. moves like this and the way that they are attempting to introduce mandatory selective testing on us is not helping. i put this down to the example being set by the managers of the sport. they want power without responsibility. i would like to ask if there were any union delegates to the fore. i will predict whichever way they vote is the way the union will go. this is happening to us every year now.

frankdooman i was not aware of the figures you have outlined. seems odd that they propose to close a marking station when it is obviously a success. one question arising out of this why close this marking station. i still fail to see how they are going to set up and run this properly. simple things like which lofts do we test and how many. do we test in all races what size of sample are we going to use. who does the testing. is a rule put in place clarifying all these points. i do not see it happening. its now mid January. around five months to june. short time to put everything in place. if it is not done correctly there could be lawyers queing up to advise.

i fail to see how pigeons can be sent on so to speak. we cannot get ybs to stay healthy but we think some can send them on using drugs. i cant see it

Homer defra have nothing to do with it.

does "catch the cheats" not indicate that some prejudging has already taken place. poor reflection on "peace and goodwill to all" i always believed that innocence until proven otherwise was a prerequisite of a fair and equitable system.

see from a report in bhw that the snfc are indicating that they may well drug test birds in the coming season.what do fanciers think of this idea.

good you know what is happening homer the rest of us are like the pigeons in the dark. I have just looked the web site. They have removed the expected prize £10000 page. they are now giving the price per bird and the buy three get £75 off deal. there is no mention of what the 2006 first prize was but manage to tell what the 2005 five first prize was. there is and has never been a list of original enteries so that people can see how much was raised through entry fees. they say that thousand shave been used in ways to benefit the pigeon fancy but provide no breakdown of receipts and paymnet. all round it is a poor show for an organisation that attempts to portray an image of a benign well intentioned pigeon organisation. very poorly publicised and the web site is very poorly maintained. how they expect anyone to take part baffles me. no information no effort no chance. anyone wanting to take part in a one loft race DO YOUR HOMEWORK. Believe your eyes and ears. believe your own gut feelings and you will not go far wrong.

there is a website at http://www.scottishpigeontrust.com. quality of information is poor in my opinion.

i was trying to make the point that if we accept that it is ultimately the membership who have to accept that they are responsible for the actions of the delegates and threrfore the management committee. for us to turn round now and say the membership were not aware of the circumstances does not standup against our original position. as to possible changes of the decision makers i must point out that this has not happened yet. also there is no mechanism that guarantees the management style will change. i understand that it may well change. my major issue is the stand taken against the family who lost their home. how do we remedy this. do way ignore it and hope it goes away. do we ignore the other obvious blunders. do we expect the people who have been wronged to go away and say nothing. do we hope that they will go away if we ignore the situation long enough. i enjoy the discussion here and while it may appear at time i am being difficult i am not. i value and will consider all opinions. this does not mean i will agree wtih them. i expect the opposite on my postings. i will not attempt to defend the undefendable but i will stand up for what i think is right. i hope i have not offended you or anyone else dandydoo as this was never my intention.

19.02 information scottishpigeontrust home page estimated prize one loft race £10000. entry form page estimated first prize £20000. same page First Prize IS £20000. entry fee one bird £125 3 or more birds £100 each. well thay hve updated part of the site. no news on the 2006 payout though. maybe their is no comment on that race.

you seem to be confused dandydoo. i do not fly pigeons with the rpra. you are working on supositions and guesses which are way off the mark. if you feel standing against individuals or organisations who have been party to a family losing their home and another party who has been handed a ridiculous suspension is revenge then that is your choice. i will continue to attempt to bring into the public arena any wrongs which i feel are being habitually and obsessively being undertaken by those who feel they are above the rules. i feel from your post that you in someway feel that the shu officials are beyond reproach. any points that i johno make are just that points. if they are lacking in substance please feel free to point that out. please do not attempt to label me as a fool or a mischiefmaker. if you would answer me one question. do you think a way forward would be to put all the isuues, ets, snfc debtors, the family loosing their house, the ten year suspension, the flying of pigeons not transfered whether knowingly or unknowingly, the illegal attempt at electing a disqualified member to the presidents post of the shu, in front of an independant arbitror. someone or body who or which all involved would agree to accept their findings.

this is all fine if the club in your area lets you in. what happens if you are not accepted.

dandydoo one persons petty dispute can be another persons life snd death issue. is the situation of depending on a delegate not common to both organisations. if procedures and rules are applied uniformly and universally across the whole membership a lot of the problems we have here in scotland would not exist. i am unaware of any rpra ets debacle, financial situation. the implications in these statments are far reaching. in the snfc debtors board you say that you do not know all the facts of some situation so you could not comment. i do not think you know the full situation of rcckinrick but that has not stopped you making comment and trying to use the same situation to float a point that all the organisations are six of one and half a dozen of the other. as to financial situations in general. all organisations should produce all books of original entry, all cash being held, all bank statements and bank passbooks, all vouchers and invoices both purcases and sales, at their agm. this would allow the membership to inspect all aspects of the organisations financial status at any given point in time. i am not aware that this has ever happened at the shu. we must stand up for fairness and and do the decent thing at all times.

the positions are completely different dandydoo.the situation with the rpra member was that the shu refused to transfer the pigeon. an attempt was made. the situation that developed due to what was happening at the time meant that the shu would not transfer the pigeon the current situation is completely different. the pigon in question has never been lodged for transfer. no attempt has been made to rectify the situation. the person who owns the pigeon has been suspended for asking how someone could fly one of his pigeons and take a lot of prize money at an snfc race. the person in the east had done all he could to transfer the pigeon. the snrpc committe and members were all aware of the situation and agreed with the member being allowed to compete with the pigeon. once again i ask how doo we rectify the situation for the family with the problem of loosing there house. if we are not aware of all the facts in a situation surely as concerned and active members we should do all in our power to make ourselves aware of the circumstances. "THE FUTURE OF THE SPORT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF EACH AND EVERYONE OF US" one of your postings. we must stand up for what is right not for what suits us. this in my opinion is the only way the sport has any future.

it would seem that anyone wanting information about the scottish pigeon trust should contact mr kelly or mr mcfadzean. so now you know it. baffles me why some organisation have a web site and refuse to put normal contact details and general information on the same site. the fact that the web site is showing contradictory information is hard to understand. the fact that they have left out everything about the 2006 race is beyond belief. the fact that the management committee appear to be incapable of a straight answer says a lot. how does one get elected to this trust, another question is this the same mr mcfadzean who accepted an illegal nomination for the presidents job at the shu while being fully aware that he was not even a delegate which automatically excluded him. makes one think very seriously. doostalker im sure some generals in the past have used the i was only doing my job clause in a vain attempt remove themselves from the flak one the commander in chief had been ousted.

i agree its the delegates and therefore the members who are ultimately responsible. the buck stops there. this being the case the membership have to be made aware of the full situation as you say dandydoo. the decisions good and bad are the final responsibility of the membership. following on from this it is not acceptable for individuals to say i only want to flee my doos it has nothing to do with me. what are your views on the wrongs that have been done to the family who have lost their home, the man in west of scotland suspended for asking questions about one of his pigeons allegedly being timed in by another member. about one application of rules being used in one case and another set bing used in another case. as has happened regularly. or the fella who whs been banned for ten years. how do we go about rectifying these wrongs.

the first step on both sides would be to admit there were wrongs on both sides. i realise that alot of the wrongs were as a result of individual actions in a lot of cases. i still and will always feel that certain officials were and continue to be acting in a malicious fashion. the family who have lost their house were standing on a point of principle. i accept that this in itself is extreme but the original issue stemmed from a refusal by the ruling body to play the role of mediator. this family were never suspended from shu but were refused membership. the shu stood on the side of the shu delegates. the family had no legal representation at the high court. the current regime have never found a case in favour of anyone in opposition to an shu delegate. the ten year ban for letter writing stinks. no mediation. going to the shu lawyer to deny an appeal that was one day late. these are not the actions of responsible officials i suggest. i know this is old hat but how do we remedy these situations. how do we repair the damage done to the individuals involved in these cases. the shu heard appeals before and after the refusal and the ratification of the ten year ban. who is going to stand up and say we were wrong. ets and not paying snfc subs are important issues but pale into insignificance when you look at the damage that has been done to these peoples lives. i do not how the officials involved sleep at night. if we can start to attempt to remedy these situations we have a chance to move forward. if we do not the current situation will only deteriorate. lets stand up for what is right and fair. this first step would be an extremely good show an extremely positive step.