johno

thanks doostalker for your information. this still leaves us with the situation of no access to information. have tried asking via the web site contact. no response on a good few occasions. will not be at blackpool. will continue to ask on this forum. no answer or response speaks for itself it wisnae me.

i take on board what you both say. may i suggest if we are being open and fair there were a good number of people at the snfc meeting who were only there to make up numbers. many people who had never prviously participated in racing with the snfc turned out to vote. many of our compadres had never before attended an snfc meeting. whether we like it or not this was seen as petty. full federations left. many former out and out snfc fanciers of long standing were sickened by the events. it was not a walk away or an attempt to hurt the snfc. the fanciers who walked away were well aware of the cash rich situation of the snfc. these fanciers considered that the shu was heavily involved in manipulating the situation. another point that has to be made is that at the time there was no agreement between the shu and the rpra so the rpra done nothing wrong in accepting the members. until we get everyone agreeing to play by a set of rules that are applied in the same fashion to all members we are going nowhere. the current situation is clear to anyone who is willing to look honestly and fairly at the evidence. there is much more to this situation than ets. many who left have no problem with ets. the fact that an shu member has lost his home fighting against a situation paid for by shu members is sickening and horrendously wrong. i take on board that many members are unaware of the situation but the family who have lost their home do not have the luxury of considering this. the other case of a 10 year ban being imposed on an shu member no threats no violence no bad language says it all. it is time to stand up for and vote for what is wright. refusing to let these matters continue will in the end finish the pigeon game. we all have a duty to be fair and reasonable.

could well do. i have not looked at the accounts. if it only says others it could be rubber rings, rings, anything. this is where a more detailed analysis is helpful. when you are dealing with a small turnover like the shu a detailed analysis would be a good idea i feel.

as of 08.21 this morning scottish pigeon trust web site is still showing two expected first prize amounts. one says £10000 and the other says £20000, what are we to conclude. last year the first prize was £10000. this year nothing has changed yet the management team seem to think they should hedge their bets. if the book you refer was as informative as the web site sales would not heve been what they might have been. what say you on this one homer.

it has now become public knowledge that there is a potential complex legal situation brewing in the west of scotland fed concerning ownership of pigeons. the partnership which includes the shu president according to t3doo is at the heart of this situation. is this a case of another fine mess. what are we to expect next. poor show. poor example. should know better.

homer you seem to ken a lot. thousands of pounds. how many thousands of pounds. and exactly when. unfortunately you never produce the goods when questioned. it is easy to prove frankdooman and myself wrong. a copy of the last five years accounts would be the ideal way to do it. what is the problem with making the accounts available for public consumption. where is the doostalker. he seems to have removed himself from the board. the idea that a few well meant people run the scottish pigeon trust in the best interests of the fancy has passed along with the Berlin wall. what is the problem with making all information regarding the scottish pigeon trust available to the pigeon fancy who have been responsible for providing the funding.

has anyone taken the time to attempt to analyse what is going on here. may i ask what the policy of the snfc was before the split. when was the last time the snfc attempted to debt suspend anyone. there have always had members who have not paid. none of these were chased up. the snfc have never as far as i am aware had their rules and constitution ratified by the shu. the snfc have ignored the shu rules and constitution on ets up until now. i am not arguing one side or another here. i am simply pointing out that the whole area is a minefield legally and there is not enough money to pay legal costs. as to confederation upholding each others suspensions we are once again treading a legal mine field. any individual member of any organisation in the uk joins the organisation of their choice. they do not join other confederations or organisations. scottish members do not have a recipricol right to fly in the whu opens or vice versa. i believe attempting to uphold local suspensions does not hold water as the individual is not a member of any recipricol set up. the individual has no right of appeal. as dandydoo rightly points out we need to become more professional and throwing money at a legal situation in a vain attempt to prove some revenge based point is not professional. how much do you think it would cost the snfc to take all the individual members to court. each individual would have to be taken individually.

yes. companies or organisations who at the time of the accounts have outstanding payments due to the shu.

strange frankdooman when the doostalker was promoting the dunoon show he could find his way to the posting forum with great ease. it would appear that there is no one available as yet to answer the questions posed on this thread. makes one think. another poor show.

I think you will find tammy these debtors are a completely different thing. there are no individual/members debtors owing money to the shu. these i think you will find are trade debtors.

i could not agree more with you dandydoo. unfortunately the damage that has already been done by people who are still in control is going to take a long time to even attempt to repair. the ex fancier who has lost his house over a pigeon related issue cannot be easily calmed down. the suspension of ten years on a fancier for writing letters is the worst case of victimisation within any membership body in the uk. the people who obsessively enforced and manipulated these situations are still at the forefront of scottish pigeon racing. the right to question has become the reason to suspend. until this changes i think the implosion will continue. time for all decent members to stand up and be counted. vote for what is right regardless of the consequences.

i will watch with interest to see the change. i take on board what you are saying but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. a lot of damage has been done on behalf of the shu by the management committee. i am aware of one family losing their house to pay of lawyers. the officials of the shu went to court and and actively went against this family when there was no need to. the idea that we only want to flle our doos has long gone. i am also aware of some other party being banned for a horrendous time period for writng letters. no one has managed to change these situations from within. unfortunately the shu as an organisation has been swallowed up by the actions of officials running with their own agendas. at the present time it is very difficult to seperate the individuals involved from the organisation. an unfortunate fact of life. a family losing their house is a bit more worrying than the reputation of any pigeon organisation i believe.

i think too many people pass views on subjects they are not well enough informed on. many posts are well meaning but ill informed i feel. the case of the so called debtors of the snfc. would it not make sense to deal with the debtors on a chronilogical basis. i.e attend to the oldest debts first. gareth how you can freely come on here and moralise on people and suggest they look in the mirror bamboozles me. what about all the people who attended the meeting where the split had its origins. people who were puppets of the scottish homing union. people who previously nevr attended snfc meetings but turned out to provide numbers. what about the current shu president and snfc secretary who openly attempted to savage shu rules in a vain attempt at electing a yes man to the shu presidential office around two years ago. the person the shu president and the snfc secretary proposed and seconded was not even a delegate to the shu so was therefoe not in a position to be elected. this they done when being aware of all the facts. the full incident has been well reported and is minuted in the shu minute record. i could go on and on. come on gareth lets be fair and realistic. lets look in our own mirror first and be fair enough to say what we see.

interesting point frankdooman and green grass. doostalker is as ihave previously said a main player. i am sure he will provide us with the information about how much money is raised and what good causes the money goes to. after all between the dunoon show and the one loft set up the scottish pigeon trust raise substantial funds from fanciers all over europe. providing the information being askrd for would be an ideal public relations exercise for the www.scottishpigeontrust.com

sounds as though something is not adding up here. doostalker was on this site promoting the scottish pigeon trust dunoon show. you seem to be a main player doostalker can you provide the answer from the horses mouth as it were as you appear to have your finger on the pulse here.

thats clarified the situation wings. clear case opf rule breaking by the shu president. once again extremely poor show extremely poor example.

frankdooman are you sure you are not mistaken. it does not add up that the same number of birds went as did so in 2005 yet the prize money for first was less than half that of 2005. doostalker you are a main player in scotland pigeon trust can you enlighten us on the situation. would it be possible to guide us to some of the income and expenditure records of scottish pigeon trust. it is after all raisng funds through pigeon fanciers. i am sure providing this information would be an excellent way of encouraging more p[eople to enter. as it is no one knows even what the entry fee is.

at last a reply to the one fed situation. lanarkshire have enforced this rule in the past. it wouild be good to know when the resignation of the shu president from his lanarkshire club took place. it never happened at any of our meetings. this indicates your statement that the shu president is not a member of the club or lanarkshire highly questionable.

how much is the entry fee per bird.

t3doo as i suspected you have not posted anything of substance. you have attempted to ignore my questions and diverted your attention to others in an attempt to avoid the reality of the shu president habitually and knowingly involving himself in breaking the rules and constitution of the shu. remember this man along with another so called rules expert, now the secretary of the snfc, tried to elect a former president of the shu when they new this same person was not even a delegate to the shu and was as such ineligible for proposing. you accused others of unfounded postings yet you have provided nothing in support of your position. whether you like it or not other people are aware of the rule breaking antics of the shu president. once again extremely poor show extremely poor example for a so called president to give.

shu president member of two feds then. breaking own rules. blaming lanarkshirw club secretary for situation. what are we going to get next. why have elected delegates at all. just get the members to pay dues and the current management will attend to all business in their own way. as i have said before this stinks. extremely poor show. extremely poor example.

are you saying that John Barlow is no longer a mamber of his lanrkshire club and therefore no longer a member of lanarkshire federation. you are not denying JB is a member of West of Scotland fed.

no

very poorly advertised Tammy. from the website detail it would seem that there is no change to the efficiency and effort being displayed by the organisation. no entry fee stated. two different first prize expectations. you pys your money you takes your chances. "maybe it will improve this year" it does not appear so from the evidence available. people should do their homework. not for me.

what statements are unfounded. is the president of the shu not a member of two feds. is there not a one fed rule in lanarkshire. did the shu not uphold the one fed rule in a case concerning the midland fed in the recent past. a member has been accepted by the shu presidents lanarkshire club who is a member of the midland fed. what is unfounded. this is reality of the situation. is the shu president who lives in the coatbridge area not now a member of dumbarton club and thus the west of scotland fed. has this not been undertaken to attempt to become a delegate to the shu for west of scotland. has this not been part of a last ditch attempt to hold on to the shu presidents post.